


rc 



ii 



c <sc 



-c c C<x. 

mm 







< 




c«c 

<-. «' 

c«L < 

c «t 

c«: < 

fee 


■crc«c<rc-<<£.< 

■dec .■<' C_C.< CQCC 


:3r \cc<; 


: «3c < 
•cxc c 




c - 


3g cCc « 


:cCC 




c 





: c c 



c c*_ 



«d «j«c cccc 

T <c <c c 
<C <C C < 
<T cc C 



c_ cc <: t<: 

jl" cc c <:<:- 



c c<c 



r cc c ««csc<C c cc cc 
SSSQC'c'c: c c 

tCQC C <C C * 

r c c «jC<C<«CJ ,r C" C 

- cc < *kc<m<x: C « ^ 4 






oc<r 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

jm*/i Ms 



UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 



tcco 

3C< CC5® 
^LC CCCV 



ccoacx 






1 c:cs c f 

dec < ^ 

1 <:cc << 



CC A 



^<( CCCXCCCC ^cc 

^ cc <cc^TC < c<v- cc: 
c •' c ccc ccC<T < , dec ce«C 
pc <<c<< 



2 <L dec c 

c <rccrd C <^ 

(CC 

< rrcc<C<CcCCC 
re cc < c«Sf c c_. cc 

i cccoscacccKK 



COCcj c 



< <: coc« c 



c c ccl cc < 

<C C< '< < 

C<! CCC <<^ C 

CCJCCCCC ex < 

c c<? <cc C< c 

c <<: 
Ci cc^<ccc <S 

C <C: C 
c «: 
< O c C CC < 
< « 
c Cd 
c CC 
C. <JC 



CC 

C ■<'«. . .r , 

C< r 

cc « <; c 

^ia / <c c * 

rT< ear <r 

« ' c <o< <: 

<Tc <a. cl « 

L.< •« ._ 
< <<- 
• C cC" - 



< C 
c c 

< c 

c c <c c 

c c<&< r. 
c: < <? r < c 



. rC < < <L. 

c«CCC( <C< 



OCC C 



<ZCC 

" c C- 
CC<^ C 

« « 

c« 



1 <p C c «KT< <c <3l 
L CC< CCcOC<: c o. 
1_<SS <&<££ A. <lc 

<-<^ <x.< C C<«L«- v 

Z ccc c ■«■«: '' 

' ccc tcccC- 

L CC t <<r« ^£L < 

Zccf < <c 

a ccc< 

rcc< cc«fv 
< o ccrc^ 

JDC< CCCC7C! 

c <xc<r<cr 

fee. ccc oc.v< 









fccc<r«v, 
ccc<< cc<:«c 

CCC C^ < 



< < < .«. 

c< cc< 

CvCcc 



c< cc<r« < 

C< CC c 

d CC C c ' c • 
: < C< < g c 

^CC<LO r 
CCC<? c 

< CTCcccC 



<<: 
cC 

cc 
c*c 
CC 



<&x 



C c r . « 
^ CCC«jC 



f C C c d<7< 

f cc c.C<cc « 

«' «C'C << 

CCCC < 

recce 



"(C< r< 

fCCCrc 



CC^CC 



ccccoc 



'cC <r c <£ '.< 

« <f 
ccc 
< ccc 

a c 

CC O 



EXAMINATION 

THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 

1 ut; 

GREEK DEPUTIES 

.and 

TWO MERCANTILE HOUSES OF NEW -YORK 

TOGETHER WITH 

A REVIEW 

OF TIIE 

PUBLIC A TIONS ON THE SUBJECT. 



THE ARBITRATORS, Messrs. EMMET AND OGDEN, AND 
Mr. WILLIAM BAYARD. 



BY 

JOHN DUER AND ROBERT SEDGWICK. 

it 



< 



NEW-YORK : 

PBINTED BY J. SEYMOT7B, JOHN-STREET- 

1826, 



c'A 






EXAMINATION, &c. 



The controversy in relation to the Greek Frigates has not 
assumed a greater importance in public opinion than it fairly 
deserves. It is not, however, from its probable effects, serious 
as they may be, on the reputation or fortunes of individuals, 
that it derives its interest with the community. Although 
personal feelings and animosities have become mixed in the 
discussion, to an extent that is much to be deplored, yet it 
is not personal in its nature, but involves considerations of a 
far more extensive import. 

The representative of a foreign nation, placed in circum- 
stances of unexampled difficulty and distress, has solemnly 
appealed to the justice of the American people ; and this 
appeal, if the facts on which it is rested be true, it seems to 
be universally felt must be answered. The character and 
honour, (it has been truly observed,) not merely of this city, 
but of the nation, are deeply concerned in the judgment that 
the public are called to pronounce. The transaction which 
is the subject of complaint, will be made known in every 
quarter of the civilized world ; and by the enemies of our free 
institutions, inferences the most injurious to our national cha- 
racter will be drawn and enforced. The stain on the honour 
of the nation will remain, and be fixed, unless it can be pre- 
vented or effaced by a very general and decisive expression of 
public opinion ; and if this be long delayed, the misconduct 
of a few individuals will be forgotten, and merged in the dis- 
grace of our country. 

We do not mean, and we trust we shall not be understood 
to mean, that to shield our national character from reproach. 



the individuals accused are to be condemned against evidence, 
or without evidence : but we do mean, that no partiality we 
may entertain for those individuals as friends or fellow-citi- 
zens — no previous estimate we may have formed of their fair- 
ness and integrity — and no amiable, though in such a case, 
weak reluctance to wound their feelings, — should prevent us 
from examining the evidence that is adduced, with all the 
attention that its importance demands, and from pronouncing 
or concurring in the sentence that our consciences shall tell 
us it justifies and requires. This is a duty which every intel- 
ligent and virtuous man owes to the community in which he 
lives, and it devolves with a peculiar force on the conductors 
of the public press. If the Messrs, Bayard and Howland are 
indeed innocent of the serious charges that have been prefer- 
red against them, let all unite in proclaiming their innocence, 
and let the undivided weight of public odium and indignation 
fall upon their accusers — not only on Mr. Contostavlos, but 
on the " legal advisers under whose auspices and sanction" it 
is assumed his publication was made. We shrink not from the 
penalty : all that we ask is, that should the evidence, fairly 
examined, lead to and compel an opposite conclusion, the 
public verdict may be pronounced with equal emphasis, and 
equal unanimity. 

All agree that the controversy, if possible, must be brought 
to a close. This can only be effected by an ample review of 
the various questions that have been discussed, and a dear 
statement of the evidence in relation to each It is true there 
are some prominent facts that are .not contested ; but there are 
others very material to be understood — indispensably so — to 
guide us in our moral estimate of the transaction, that imper- 
fect and contradictory statements have involved in doubt. 
There are dark recesses, on which the light of truth and evi- 
dence must be thrown. It is the whole case, so far as it has 
not been already fully disclosed, that we propose to exhibit. 
This task circumstances have imposed on us as a sacred duty. 
The counsel of Mr. Contostavlos are the friends " with whom 
he left the means of substantiating the truth of every material 
allegation that he had made, and of vindicating his character 



against every calumny that the malice of his enemies might 
urge." By permitting him to make this declaration, we in 
effect accepted the trust that it implied: in conscience and 
honour we cannot shrink from its fulfilment. 

Our preface may seem long; but in some further prelimi- 
nary remarks we must be indulged. 

We are very sensible of the painful nature of the discussion 
on which we are about to enter. In conducting it, we shall 
endeavour to express ourselves with all just respect towards 
the gentlemen who acted as arbitrators. Whatever they may 
now think, or be prevailed on to believe, our feelings towards 
them are very different from those of personal hostility. Of 
the injustice of their award, and of the very serious defects of 
their report, we must, indeed, speak — without passion, we 
hope, certainly without disguise — but we shall press no uncha- 
ritable inferences as to their motives ; we have no desire that 
such should be drawn by others. We hold it base to insinu- 
ate what we would not assert. 

It is matter of deep regret to us that this controversy has 
assumed any thing of a personal nature in regard to the arbi- 
trators, or either of them. We desire to separate them from it, 
as far as is consistent with truth and justice. It is our anxious 
wish to detach their individual respectability and weight of 
character from all alliance with delinquency, which has no 
other refuge or protection. Certainly no gentlemen could 
have been selected, in whose purity of intention more entire 
confidence was to be reposed. By a long course of virtuous 
and honourable conduct, they had justly gained not merely 
the respect and esteem of their friends, but of the community. 
In the relations of private life, they are all of them most ami- 
able and exemplary men. We make these concessions freely; 
we make them, we trust, with a due sense of the value of cha- 
racter, and of the weight to which it is entitled in this discus- 
sion ; and we make them, we must be permitted to add, not 
so much in deference to public opinion, as in justice to our 
own feelings. We will go still farther in their behalf. We 
wish the public fully to understand and appreciate the delu- 
sive influences to which these gentlemen were subject, and by 



which our experience of human nature must compel us to 
confess, the decisions even of honourable minds are sometimes 
swayed. 

There were causes, constantly operating on the minds of the 
arbitrators, which deadened their moral feelings, and prevent- 
ed the free exercise of their judgment. Their minds were 
pre-occupied with opinions and sympathies, of the extent and 
power of which they were not themselves aware, but which, 
in fact, rendered them incompetent to act as judges. They 
were indisposed, and very greatly indisposed, to believe the 
charges it was our duty to prefer; and consequently the evi- 
dence and arguments in support of them were not weighed 
and felt as they would have been weighed and felt by unbiass- 
ed men. The truth is, the cause ought not to have been heard 
in New-York. We shall be understood by reflecting men, 
when we say, that considering the nature of the controversy, 
and the situation of the parties accused, it was hardly pro- 
bable it should be heard in this city with the requisite impar- 
tiality : at least the arbitrators themselves, and even the coun- 
sel for the Deputies, ought to have been strangers. When we 
reflect on the mistakes which, from a false confidence, we 
ourselves committed, we are confirmed in the belief that we 
were all of us subject to an influence very adverse to a tho- 
rough and vigilant discharge of our duty — an influence so 
interwoven with past recollections, and present opinions and 
feelings, that it acted on our minds almost with the secrecy 
and certainty of instinct. It was impossible to forget the long 
and established standing, the unblemished reputation, the ex- 
tensive connexions, the numerous relatives and friends of those 
whose conduct we were called to investigate. We knew in 
what high estimation they were generally, if not universally 
held, and that charges affecting their mercantile honour would 
be listened to with extreme incredulity. It is not true that wc 
conducted the inquiry in a spirit of jealous and angry crimina- 
tion. Until the truth broke in on our minds, with an evidence 
not to be resisted — until we were in a manner forced to see. — 
our disposition was to conciliate, to soften — to accept of any 
plausible explanation that, without a sacrifice of the rights of 



our clients, would save the integrity of the houses from re 
proach. The arbitrators yielded to an influence, from which 
we found it difficult to emancipate our own minds, and to the 
operation of which, from their far more intimate connexions 
with the houses and their immediate friends, they were much 
more exposed than ourselves. There are heights not only 
above the low atmosphere of selfish and interested feeling, 
but even above the region of friendship and gratitude, on 
which we must place ourselves when we seek to breathe a pure 
and invigorating air. These heights the arbitrators did not 
ascend. Of their feelings of extreme partiality towards the 
houses — their fixed disposition to view their conduct in the 
most favourable light — to excuse, defend, and justify them 
throughout, — the pamphlet of the arbitrators affords far more 
striking evidence even than their award. How very clear 
and decided are they in their opinions as to the propriety of 
allowing all the contested charges that were allowed ! In re- 
lation to them, they have no doubt or scruple. The $80,000 
(the 10 per cent.) are a very reasonable commission. Had 
not the houses been so emphatically the friends of Greece, 
they would doubtless have charged more ; and if they had, it 
seems quite certain that more would have been allowed — " for 
the example in building ships for the government of Colombia 
is in point, and that would authorise a much heavier charge." 
The $50,000 paid to the ship-builders, "for the immediate 
and exclusive devotion of their extensive ship-yards, and their 
skill and personal services," notwithstanding the foolish cla- 
mour on the subject, is in truth less than these disinterested 
mechanics ought to have received; " for the evidence is, that 
they have rather lost than gained by their contract." The 
$11,500 obtained by Capt. Chauncey, is a sum hardly fit to be 
named, when compared with the " extraordinary value" of his 
services, especially when we consider the " sacrifice he made 
in retiring from the public service, and losing his pay and 
emoluments as a Captain in the navy;" this palpable fact, 
that he gave up $2,000 per ami. for the miserable equivalent 
of nearly $12,000, is quite decisive. Thus, without the least 
hesitation, a faint or solitary expression of regret, more than 



$ J 40,000 are transferred to the pockets of a tew of our citi- 
zens, although it was well known that this sum formed a large 
proportion of the very last resources of a million of our fel- 
low-beings, who were enduring every imaginable privation- 
sustaining the extremity of famine — exposing their lives, as if 
they had no value—and shedding their blood like water, to 
free themselves from the most degrading and galling chains 
to which the bodies and souls of men were ever subjected ! 
The only regret that the arbitrators do express is, that the 
claims of the houses could not be allowed in their full extent ! 
They were all, it seems, just and reasonable in themselves; 
the houses were very right to prefer them ; — the Deputies, and 
we, as their counsel, ought in conscience to have allowed 
them; and upon technical grounds alone did we succeed in 
defeating them. These are not the words of the arbitrators, 
but such is the fair import of their language. 

The arbitrators say they " felt the hardship of imposing 
on the Messrs. Howland the loss of the £7,500 sterling 
drawn from the Messrs. Ricardo, and deposited in the hands 
of Williams, and lost by his failure." (Rep. p. 62.) That is, 
they felt the hardship of compelling the Messrs. Howland, 
instead of the Deputies, to sustain the loss of moneys placed 
by the Messrs. Howland in the hands of their own banker — 
not in the execution of their trust — not for any purpose con- 
nected with its execution — but with a view solely to their own 
convenience ! — Of moneys drawn from the Ricardos, on the 
false allegation that they were required for immediate expen- 
diture in this country, and permitted to remain in the hands of 
Williams for many months after they had been thus impro- 
perly obtained ! — Of moneys deposited with their own banker 
in London, not only without the knowledge or consent of the 
Deputies, but against their expressed wishes ! — Of moneys 
deposited under an actual agreement on the part of the Messrs. 
Howland with Gen. Lallemand, and that they would assume 
the risk ! — Under all these circumstances, they felt the hard- 
ship of rejecting this claim, uninfluenced even by the addi- 
tional fact, that in the judgment of General Lallemand, it had 
hpon renounced hv the Messrs. Howland themselves many 



months before the arbitration commenced; and that on the 
faith of such renunciation, a letter of credit was delivered to 
them, that would otherwise have been withheld ! The arbi- 
trators also rejected the claims for damages on the protested 
bills, not as a most unjustifiable and ext ionate demand, but in 
compliance solely with " the rigid rules of law," in opposition, it 
is clearly implied, to the natural dictates of conscience. That is, 
they " felt bound, by the rigid rules of law" (Rep. p 62) alone„to 
reject a claim for pretended damages, to the extent of more 
than $70,000, although not one cent of pecuniary loss was 
shown to have been sustained. And although the allegation 
that the credit of the houses had been, or could have been, 
affected by the protest of bills drawn by them, not on their 
own account, but as agents — not to be paid out of their own 
funds, but out of those of their principals — not sold, but re- 
mitted for collection, — was on its face impossible and absurd. 
All this is strange — it is astonishing ; — it will appear so to all 
who breathe an atmosphere different from that in which the 
arbitrators lived and moved, when they made their award and 
prepared their report. Yet all this does not necessarily imply 
dishonesty. It may be — we are bound to believe it is — delu- 
sion.* 

Having made these explanations, we shall commence our 
task by replying to some accusations which, if not directly 

* We recommend to the attention of those who doubt the force of the 
preceding considerations, the following 1 slightly altered passage, written by 
one whose deep knowledge of* the human heart will be questioned by none 
who are acquainted with his writings. " We cannot be acquainted with, 
" or in any propriety of speech be said to know any thing, but what we 
" attend to. If, therefore, persons attend only to one side, they really will 
" not, cannot see or know what is to be alleged on the ether. Though a 
" man hath the best eyes in the world, he cannot see arty way but that 
" which he turns them. Thus such persons, without passing over the least 
" the most minute thing which can possibly be urged in favour of their own 
" opinions, shall overlook entirely the plainest and most obvious things on 
" the other side : and whilst they are under the power of this temper, 
" thought and consideration upon the matter before them has scarcely any 
" tendency to set them right ; because they are engaged, and their delibe- 
" ration concerning an act to be done, or reflection upon it afterwards, is 
" not to see whether it be right, but to find out reasons to justify or pal- 
liate it" 



10 

asserted, are by no means obscurely intimated, and which arc 
calculated to be the more injurious, from the artful and covert 
manner in which they are expressed. That the charges to 
which we refer, are meant to apply as well to the legal advisers 
of Mr. Contostavlos as to himself, cannot be doubted, and 
probably will not be denied. It is true, that with the substan- 
tial merits of the controversy these charges have little to do ; 
but they have much to do with the agency that has been attri- 
buted to us in producing or exciting it. 

" A sense of duty and propriety," it seems, ought to have 
restrained us from " giving publicity to the prominent facts 
relating to the enterprise of building the frigates" — conse- 
quently from advising or countenancing such publication. We 
have shown ourselves entirely regardless " of those delicate 
considerations which, as dutiful citizens, we owe to the United 
States, and which forbid a wanton and unnecessary exposure 
of any facts, to induce a belief that our government has con- 
nived at an enterprise forbidden by the laws of our county 
and in violation of our national neutrality." (Rep. p. 1, 2.) 
Such conduct towards the general government, is as " ungrate- 
ful" as " it is indelicate ;" and if, from " feelings of benevolence 
and sympathy, it has lent itself to the succour of the Greeks, 
it must view with dissatisfaction and disgust the requital it has 
received.*" On this subject we are willing to take our 
share of responsibility. The " Narrative" of Mr. Contos- 
tavlos was not written in consequence of our advice, but cer- 
tainly with our sanction.f On full consideration we approved 
of the motives that led him to prepare it, and direct its publi- 
cation : and to all who will reflect on the nature of Mr. Con- 
tostavlos' mission, and on the duties he owed to his country, the 
Deputies, and himself, the propriety of his determination will 
be sufficiently obvious. The funds transmitted to this country 
for the building of the frigates, were the produce of a loan 
obtained in England, principally, it is believed, through the 

* Letter of Messrs. Emmet and Ogden, p. 42, Bayard's pamphlet. 

f The feelings which are mingled with the narrative of Mr. Contostavlos. 
and the tone in which they are uttered must be considered as his own. It 
is to be understood that we gave our sanction to his statement of facts. 



11 

intervention of the Greek Committee in London. The sub 
scribers to this loan were in no equivocal sense the friends ot' 
Greece — for on the contingency of her independence they 
hazarded all they advanced. By the proper application of 
these funds, it was thought this object might be effected ; and 
it was herefore certain that their expenditure would be watch- 
ed with the utmost jealousy and vigilance It was known that 
a rigid, and, as is the practice in England, a public account 
would be demanded of every agent into whose hands any 
portion of a capital so sacred, and so difficult to be re- 
placed, should be entrusted. Of this the houses themselves 
were lully apprised, even before the arrival of Mr. Contostav- 
los. In a letter addressed to them by the Messrs. Ricardo, 
dated the 14th December, 1825, we find the following pas- 
sage : — " As contractors for the Greek loan, which has termi- 
nated so unfortunately to ourselves, our friends, and the pub- 
lic, we may be called upon to give an account of how the 
funds have been disposed of for the building of two frigates 
in America. So enormous a sum as £155,000, will be con- 
sidered as a most extraordinary item. We must therefore 
request of you to give us the fullest explanation on the sub- 
ject, as we rely on the respectability of your house to prove 
to the satisfaction of the public here, that there has been no 
unnecessary extravagance." It cannot, therefore, be a matter 
of surprise that Mr. Contostavlos had a deep sense of his per- 
sonal responsibility in the execution of his difficult trust. It 
was his fixed determination, whatever might be the result of 
his efforts, that his own reputation should not perish in the 
possible wreck of the hopes of his country. Before the arbi- 
tration closed, he had resolved to make the transaction, and 
the proceedings before the arbitrators, public in all their de- 
tails. Nor were the arbitrators ignorant that such were his 
intentions: the fact was explicitly announced to them by both 
the counsel, who addressed them at the close of the evidence 
in behalf of the Deputies. It is manifest that the motives to 
this resolution were much strengthened by the award itself, 
and by subsequent occurrences, especially by the refusal of 
the houses to furnish their bills of parcels, and that of the 



12 

arbitrators, to state the reasons of their award. It was casj. 
to foresee the censures and the clamour that would be pro- 
yoked by the unexplained fact, that a single frigate had been 
obtained in exchange for £155,000 sterling; and that the 
acquiescence and silence of the Deputies and their representa- 
tive, woiild have no other effect than to involve them in the 
suspicion of having shared in the profits of a most disgrace- 
ful job. A publication, therefore, of the material facts in 
England or in this country, was inevitable. The Deputies, 
the Messrs. Ricardo, and Mr. Contostavlos, could not sup- 
press them without consenting to their own dishonour. For 
many reasons, we preferred that the publication should first be 
made here. We therefore deliberately approved of Mr. Con- 
tostavlos' appeal to the American people, not only as the most 
effectual means of vindication that he could adopt, but as not 
unlikely to result in obtaining for his country that aid on 
which she had relied, and of which, in our serious judgment, 
she had been most unjustly deprived. It is not true, there- 
fore, that the exposure of facts made by Mr. Contostavlos 
Was " wanton and unnecessary," even had it led to the im- 
pression or belief that the general government had connived 
at an enterprise known to be illegal. Yet it so happens, that 
on this part of the case the vindication of Mr. Contostavlos 
is, if possible, still more complete. He has not been guilty of 
that indelicacy and ingratitude towards the general govern- 
ment, which is so gratuitously imputed to him. His " Nar- 
rative" does not contain a sentence, line or phrase, from which 
it can be fairly inferred that the government had lent its sanc- 
tion or countenance to an enterprise " forbidden by the laws, 
and in violation of our national neutrality." It nowhere 
appears that it was disclosed to the government, supposing 
for the moment that there is no distinction between an 
act of the President and an act of Congress, that the 
Messrs. Bayard and Howland were building the frigates out 
of funds supplied to them by the Deputies in London, and for 
the use and as the property of the Greek government. It may, 
indeed, have been known that the vessels were finally destined 
for the service of Greece : but this fact by no means implies 



the illegality of " the enterprise." There is no law to pro. 
an American citizen from building and fitting out vessels oi 
war on his own account, although with the expectation and 
intent of selling them to a foreign government engaged in 
war. For aught that it would appear, was known to the 
government the houses were building the frigates for Greece, 
in the same manner that Mr. Eckford has been for years openly 
engaged in building frigates for Colombia. 

But while Mr. Contostavlos is thus innocent of the charge 
imputed to him, it is not so easy to acquit the arbitrators 
themselves : whilst they assume towards others such a lofty 
tone of political morality, i( is not a little extraordinary that 
they should themselves have been guilty of the ' indelicacy 
and indiscretion" which they affect to reprehend. They, it 
seems,* "felt the full fon-e of the delicate considerations which, 
as dutiful citizens, they owe to the United States." To such 
an extent indeed did these sentiments influence their conduct, 
(such at least is the ingenious supposition of Messrs. Emmet 
and Ogden) that they alonef caused the omission from their 
faithful report of the evidence, of the important letter of the 
15th of April— that is, caused the omission of the docu- 
ment on which the right of the Deputies to rescind the con- 
tract was placed — " the cardinal point," J on which (according 
to the arbitrators) " the counsel for the Dep ties relied " We 
readily admit, that delicacy towards the general government 
could not well be carried further than to induce the suppres- 
sion of the most material fact in the whole controversy 

Yet we lament to say, in spite of all these professions ancl 
excuses, it is the arbitrators themselves and their candid apo- 
logists, who have been the first to accuse the general govern- 
ment. It is they who have chosen to intimate, that before the 
building of the frigates was commenced, the nature and object 
of the enterprise were made known to the government, and 
assurances obtained, that in relation to these vessels the law? 
of the country should not be enforced. The language, we ad- 

* Rep. p. l. 

f Letter of Messrs. Emmctf and Og-dcn, Baynrd's Expo?, p. 4e. 

tRep. p. BO, 



14 

mit, is cautious/but is it possible to mistake the meaning ? We 
subjoin the passages to which we chiefly refer, and instead of 
reasoning as to their import, we put ourselves on the answers 
of every candid man to the questions, — " What is the impres- 
sion that: you believe was intended to be made? What are 
the facts that you understand, to be covertly asserted ?" 

" We think it not a forced construction to infer from the 
"language and spirit of that article, (the additional article of 
" instructions) that the Deputies meant that the agents here 
" should ascertain unequivocally that our government would re- 
" frain from any exertion of authority, and secretly favour 
" the enterprise. Whether the agents did unequivocally as- 
" certain this disposition in the government ? whether the 
"operation has met no opposition from the government or 
" laws of the United States?" and whether the ' Hellas' has 
" been " permitted to sail and enrol her men ?" are delicate 
" questions ; and we deem it unnecessary to discuss or weigh 
" the evidence on those points. The duty of these houses 
" and General Lallemand, in relation to our government, re- 
" quired great circumspection, fidelity and address." — Report^ 
p. 50, 1. 

" We are of opinion that the usage thus proved, does not 
" govern this case; because the agency of these houses was 
" not within the ordinary range of commercial transactions, 
" to which that usage applies. Here was a special confi- 
C{ dence of a political as well as commercial character. The 
c ' houses, with General Lallemand, were, in fact, diplomatic 
" agents in a very difficult and delicate affair with our govern - 
" ment. Whether that part of their agency has been discreet- 
" ly and successfully accomplished, and whether they have 
u procured the favour of the government in the manner con- 
" templated in their instructions, is a point on which we 
" express no opinion." — Report, p. 52, 3. 

Letter from Messrs. Emmet and Ogden. Bayard's pam- 
phlet, page 42. 

" On this topic of illegality we must further say, we think 



15 

;i the general government has been treated with very little de- 
" licacy or discretion, and if it did any thing to favour the 
;< views of the Greeks, with some ingratitude. Efforts arc 
' ; made to goad the houses, from motives of self-defence, into 
,; the disclosure of confidential transactions, if any such ever 
;; did take place. How they art 1 to defend themselves, it is 
" not for us to say ; but it may well be, that they must contend 
••' on unequal terms, if they do not disregard the injunctions 
i: of prudence and honour." 

Mr. William Bayard, in his " Exposition," has thrown off all 
disguise. The facts which the arbitrators and his counsel 
have intimated, we understand him distinctly to assert.* 
It is therefore the adversaries of Mr. Contostavlos who 
have charged the general government " with having con- 
nived at an enterprise forbidden by the laws, and in violation 
of our national neutrality." 

But it will be said, that these n disclosures" have been pro- 
voked. The arbitrators and the houses have been absolutely 
" goaded" to make them in self-defence ; " and if the injunctions 
of prudence and honour have been disregarded," it is upon Mr. 
Contostavlos and his advisers that the indignation of the 
government and of the country ought to fall. It was essen- 
tial to the vindication of the arbitrators that they should dis- 
tinguish the building of these frigates from ordinary mercan- 
tile operations, since otherwise the principal reason that they 
have assigned for disregarding the evidence of mercantile 
usage, on the subject of commissions, would have entirely 
failed. It was necessary that the arbitrators should clothe 
the houses and General Lallemand with the imposing charac- 
ter of " diplomatic agents in a very delicate and difficult af- 
fair with our government," since otherwise they could not 
have dwelt on the great circumspection, " fidelity, and address" 
with which they discharged this important trust. If we con- 
sider the houses only as merchants, it is true their commissions 
must appear extravagant; but if we regard them in their true 

1 



10 

character of " diplomatic agents," what limit shall be placed 
to their merits and their demands? To the defence of the 
houses these disclosures were still more necessary, They 
could not otherwise have defended themselves against the 
charge of having violated their instructions, and deceived the 
Deputies by false assurances of the entire safety of the opera- 
tion committed to them. Against this very serious charge it 
is their sufficient and sole defence, that they had ascertained, in 
the most unequivocal manner, that the existing laws would 
not be carried into execution. 

To all this our reply shall be orief and decisive. If the 
facts insinuated or asserted as to the connivance of the gene- 
ral government, and the assurances given by them of secret 
protection, were true, and such evidence was given to the arbi- 
trators, then the justification of the arbitrators and of the houses 
for having published those facts would be complete, and upon 
Mr. Contostavlos and his legal advisers the blame of having 
provoked the disclosure ought to rest : but of these important 
facts no evidence whatever was given before the arbitrators, 
and we have no belief in their existence. This subject the 
reader must see is most important — it touches the very vitals 
of the controversy : we must, therefore, be distinctly under- 
stood. We shall leave no room for evasion or subterfuge in 
others, or for charging us with the " subtle refinements and 
astute reasoning" to which it seems to have been predicted 
we should have recourse. 

The counsel for the Deputies charged the houses with hav- 
ing grossly failed in their duty as agents, by subjecting, con- 
trary to their instructions, the immense property intrusted to 
them to the peril of forfeiture, whilst at the same time they de- 
ceived the Deputies by false assurances of its entire safety. 
We hope this is plain and intelligible. This is the charge. 
The arbitrators, in behalf of the houses and in their own defence, 
reply — the charge is not true. The houses did not fail in 
their duty as agents, or deceive their employers. They did 
not violate, but fulfilled their instructions according to their 
language and spirit. " All that the Deputies meant was, that 
the agents here should ascertain, unequivocally? that our gov- 



17 

eminent would retrain from any exertion oi authority, and se- 
cretly favour the enterprise ;" and they then proceed to say, — 
(for unless they m an this, the charge is unanswered — unless 
they mean this, they mean nothing), — that the agents did ascer- 
tain unequivocally that such was the disposition, and would be 
the conduct of the government. If the rbitrators have rightly 
construed the instructions of the Deputies, and if the houses 
did obtain such assurances as is alleged, we admit that the 
charge of breach of duty and of deception is repelled. We 
say nothing at present of the construction which the arbitra- 
tors adopt ; but we call upon them to show that any evidence 
was given to them of the truth of the facts which they assume. 
They say that they deem it unnecessary " to weigh and dis- 
cuss that evidence." We deny its existence. We call upon 
them to show that there was any evidence of any communica- 
tion whatever between the houses and the government, on the 
subject of the intended building and equipping of the frigates. 
We call upon them to show how, in what manner, when, where, 
from whom, it " was unequivocally ascertained that the go- 
vernment would refrain from any exercise of authority, and 
secretly favour the enterprise." This they say the Deputies 
meant should be done ; this the agents, they admit, were 
bound to do. If this were not done, then the charge that these 
agents violated their instructions and deceived their employ- 
ers, remains in full force. Prove then, that this was done. 
After all that has been said, it is idle to speak "of the delicate 
considerations which dutiful citizens owe to the United States." 
The language, it must be confessed, is grave and plausible; 
but there are none whom it can now deceive. The fact, that 
the general government connived at an enterprise it knew to 
be illegal, and gave assurances of secret protection, is assert- 
ed. It is worse than affectation to pretend any scruples about 
producing the evidence to show its truth. It is a novel species 
of delicacy, which we suspect neither the government nor the 
public will be able to understand or appreciate, that is bold 
and unscrupulous in accusing, timid and sensitive only when 
proof is demanded. 

C 



IB 

But it will be said, that the proof we demand has been al- 
ready given to the public. If — (we must be pardoned the use 
of the ominous conjunction) — if Mr. William Bayard is to be 
credited, " General Lallemand," before the celebrated letter 
of the 15th April was written, "addressed himself to higher 
" sources of information ; and, by personal inquiries, ascer- 
" tained to his entire satisfaction, that the operation about to 
" be undertaken would meet no opposition from the govern- 
" ment or laws of the United States." By " higher sources 
of information," we must understand the President and his 
cabinet, since, by no authority inferior to that of the execu- 
tive, could such assurances be given. " On his return to New- 
York," General Lallemand communicated his information to 
the houses, when they all, it seems, became " equally satis- 
fied." So far as we are concerned to repel the charge of hav- 
ing "provoked" this extraordinary disclosure, it is sufficient 
to say, that no evidence of the facts it embraces was given to 
the arbitrators ; that Mr. Contostavlos and his counsel had no 
suspicion of their existence, md could not, therefore, antici- 
pate their publication. How far the statement of Mr. Bayard 
affects the merits of the controversy, will be hereafter seen. 

There remain other very serious charges, and which we 
cannot but see are meant to affect us personally, to which we 
must advert. Messrs. Emmet and Ogden, in their letter to 
the arbitrators, say that the compromise of the suit in Equit}', 
under which a large sum was obtained from the houses, was 
represented to them " as made under a solemn agreement that 
all disputes and angry discussions were to cease ;" and in a 
subsequent paragraph they add, that " recent publications 
" show that the conciliatory assurances under which the ar~ 
" rangement was made, are to be disregarded, after the fruits 
u of them have been obtained and carried away." 

The " recent publications" to which the counsel refer, cau 
only mean the letters addressed by us to Mr. Henry D. Sedg- 
wick, and prefixed to his "Refutation." And it is wished 
that the public should understand that by us, or with our con- 
sent and knowledge, the " conciliatory assurances" of which 
thev speak were made, and by us,. " after their fruit6 have 



19 

been obtained, are to be disregarded." We feel no gratitude 
to the gentlemen for the apparent reserve with which they 
express themselves. We should have been better satisfied 
had they charged us in plain terms, and by name, with the 
very dishonourable conduct which it is their intention to im- 
pute. We are no friends to the enigmas which cunning frames 
to the public, ihat malignity may expound them in secret. 
The counsel disclaim all wish to " receive or retort asperi- 
ties," and lament that such have ever been uttered; whilst 
in the same breath they accuse us of obtaining, by M false 
pretences," a large sum of money, which neither in law nor 
conscience were their clients bound to pay ! Yet it is not, 
perhaps, without an adequate motive that this meek, pacific, 
forgiving tone is assumed. It is thus that insinuation plumes 
its most fatal arrows. They are scarcely seen as they fly ; 
the wound is hardly felt when it is received. But the treach- 
erous missile has been dipped in poison ; and it is hoped that 
the victim shall pine and perish under a disease, of the cause 
of which he is to remain unconscious. 

It is true that Messrs Emmet and Ogden disclaim all per- 
sonal knowledge of the facts that occurred when the compro- 
mise was made. They took no part in the negotiation, and 
it was concluded, it seems, against their wishes and advice. 
But they express no distrust of the representations that they 
tell us were made to them. On the contrary, they mean it to 
be understood that they believed them to be strictly accurate ; 
and by this expression of their own confidence, they expected 
to secure that of the public. We have a right to complain, 
and we do complain, that these gentlemen have thus chosen to 
lend the sanction of their names to the assertions of their cli- 
ents, without ascertaining, by previous inquiry from us, how 
far we admitted those assertions to be true. It seems to us, 
for obvious reasons, that they were bound to pursue this 
course. They have, however, judged differently. In prefer- 
ence to seeking an explanation from us, they have chosen to 
repose an implicit faith in their own clients. Undeceived and 
unwarned by all that has occurred, they have chosen to pub- 
lish to the world the facts which they thus received, careless 



2© 

of the effect to be produced on the reputation of men, of whose 
integrity and honour, in a long course of professional ac- 
quaintance, they never had reason to doubt. We must, indeed, 
express our surprise, but shall leave the gentlemen, without 
regret, to abide by their election. We proceed briefly to the 
facts. The terms of the compromise were finally settled in 
conferences between Mr. Henry D. Sedgwick and a gentleman 
intimately connected with one of the houses, but whose name 
is withheld, from motives of delicacy towards himself. Before 
Mr. Sedgwick printed his "Vindication," he deemed it his 
duty to ascertain how far his intended publication would be 
deemed by this gentleman a violation of any engagement, 
express or implied, subsisting between them. He addressed a 
letter to him on the subject, offering, at the same time, the 
perusal of what he had written, and meant to publish. The 
reply was prompt and explicit ; and we give an extract from 
the letter now before us, omitting only those parts that have 
no relation to the point we are considering. 

"September 5. 
" My dear Sir, — I did not consider you restrained by an 
" engagement with me, from publishing an address to the 
" public on the subject of the recent controversy; nor should 
" I be willing to have the matter of such address communi- 
" cated to me before publication. You are aware of the deli- 
u cacy of my situation, and of the expediency of my declining 
" all connexion with the angry discussion that your appeal 
" may provoke. Truly yours, &tc." 

If no engagement were made to bind Mr. Sedgwick, it will 
hardly be pretended or supposed that any was made by him 
on behalf of his associate counsel or Mr. Contostavlos. If it 
be meant, or has been asserted, that at any other time during 
the negotiation, or with any other person, an agreement was 
made, or assurances given by Mr. Contostavlos, or either of 
the counsel, that the transaction that had been the subject of 
controversy should not be made known to the public, we so- 
lemnly declare that such assertions are untrue. 



21 

So far we trust that our explanations have been satisfac 
tory.* We shall now proceed to examine a very grave accu- 
sation. In this discussion, we shall pass from topics merely 
personal, to some of the merits of the controversy. The 
transition will not be more refreshing to our readers than to 
ourselves. 

It is known to the public, that when the arbitrators deliver- 
ed their award, Mr. Contostavlos and his counsel were greatly 
dissatisfied with the result; and, after a short interval, made 
known to the arbitrators their determination not to comply 
with the decree that had been pronounced, f 



It may occur to some readers as a circumstance not unimportant, that 
"VIr. Bayard, in his " Exposition," has nowhere asserted or intimated the 
existence of the agreement to which the counsel have referred, with a view 
of giving currency to a charge of its dishonourable violation. We can lay 
no stress on this omission as a proof of the non-existence of the facts : but 
the author of the pamphlet doubtless foresaw what the counsel had strang-e- 
ly overlooked — the necessary effect of such a statement on Ihe houses 
themselves. Guilt may well seek concealment ; but was silence ever 
purchased by innocence ? and this too, by men not careless of money, 
at an expense of $24,000 ? Yet this has been said of the Messrs. Bayard 
and Howland, by their own counsel. 

f Report, p. 42-44. We request the reader to peruse with attention, 
the correspondence published in the pages to which we refer, particularly 
with a view to the singular grounds on which the arbitrators place their 
refusal to furnish to Mr. Contostavlos a statement of the reasons of their 
award. The letter of the arbitrators, of the 29th July, contains this sen- 
tence : " Whenever the award shall be carried into effect, we shall not de- 
<c dine to give our reasons, and especially to Mr. Contostavlos." Fn refer- 
ence to this, Mr. C. remarked to us — "This certainly is not the kind of 
" justice that 1 expected in America, although it very much resembles that 
li which is frequently dealt to my countrymen in Constantinople. When 
" it is deemed expedient to apply the wealth of a Greek merchant to pub- 
" lie uses, the unfortunate man whose effects are to be confiscated, is 
" seized by the order of the Porte, and instantly, without any explanation 
u of the causes of his arrest, or any opportunity of defence, hurried to exe- 
" cution. But when the award of the Sultan ' has been carried into effect' 
■ — when the victim has been decapitated, and his head fixed on the walls 
- : of the Seraglio, — then it is that Turkish justice displays itself. To the 
• ; head thus exposed a paper is carefully affixed, stating at length the rea- 
- : *ons of the execution, and iustifying- its necessity." 



22 

After reflecting with great anxiety, it will be readily believ- 
ed, on the course it was our duty to pursue, we resolved to 
file a bill in the Equity Court of this Circuit, with a view to 
set aside the award, and procure a settlement of the accounts 
on the known principles of the court to which we appealed. 
Judge Edwards, after a very careful consideration of the sub- 
ject, granted an injunction according to the prayer of the bill, 
restraining the arbitrators from acting further in the execution 
of their trust, and especially from selling the vessels, or either 
of them, as they had already announced was their intention. 
As Judge Edwards, when we applied to him, was about to 
leave the city, and expected to be absent for some weeks, he 
very properly made it a condition of granting the injunction, 
that the defendants should be at liberty to apply to the Chan- 
cellor for its dissolution, either upon the bill itself, or upon 
putting in their answers. To this condition we readily assent- 
ed. Indeed our impression is, that by one of us this course 
was suggested. 

We avow, not, we hope, in pride, but certainly not with 
shame or regret, that our great object in filing this bill, was to 
compel the houses to abate from the amount awarded to them, 
a sufficient sum Jo enable Mr. Contostavlos to complete the 
equipment of the Hope, and despatch her, with as little delay 
as possible, to the service of his country. In this design, how- 
ever, it was impossible for us to succeed, unless the objections 
to the validity of the award set forth in the bill were satisfac- 
tory and conclusive, and unless it were out of the power of the 
defendants — that is, the arbitrators -and the houses — to contra- 
dict, under oath, the material facts on which these objections 
were founded. It was essential to our success, that we should 
be enabled to continue the prohibition to sell the vessels. A 
sale made by the arbitrators, especially at auction, as they 
contemplated, instead of securing to Greece the aid of one of 
the frigates, would probably have involved the sacrifice of 
both. In our judgment, it would also have led to the ultimate 
loss of the whole of the immense funds which the Deputies 
had remitted. Without impeaching the credit or stability of 
the houses, we may surely say, that if the security of the 



\ easels were losi to us, we had no reliance on their personal 
ability to restore to our clients the 750,000 dollars which 
they had received. A decree for this enormous amount, 
would probably have been less available to Greece even than 
her depreciated stock. The reader must therefore see, that if 
the defendants could have procured a dissolution of the injunc- 
tion, our object would have been defeated, and they would 
have compelled us to perform the award without change, or 
deduction. We could have done nothing else ; and the 
public will perfectly understand the true motives of the com- 
promise of which we are now to speak, when we inform them, 
that if the award had been valid and binding on the parties. 
the dissolution of the injunction within a short period was 
easy and certain. If, in the judgment of the Chancellor, 
the objections of our bill to the award were groundless ; 
or if they had appeared so from the statement of the ar- 
bitrators, under oath, (which, in this state of the cause, we 
should not have been permitted to question,) the injunction 
would have been dissolved within a fortnight from the time 
our bill was filed ; the houses would have been saved from the 
necessity of paying what they did pay in compliance with our 
demands; and we should have had no refuge, but in obeying 
unconditionally the terms of the award. In our expectations, 
however, as to the event of our proceedings, we were not dis- 
appointed. The bill and the injunction answered the purpose 
they were meant to fulfil. Within a few days, a negotiation 
for a compromise was opened. We meant to use, but not to 
abuse, the power that we were conscious we possessed. We 
insisted that the mistakes apparent on the face of the accounts 
delivered by the arbitrators, should be correc ted, and that the 
charges allowed without authority, or without evidence, should 
be deducted ; but we at the same time offered to abide by the 
award on all the points to which, by any reasonable interprc- 
atioji, the powers of the arbitrators could be construed to ex- 
tend. Some difficulties and delay intervened ; but each of the 
houses finally agreed to deduct $12,000 from the sum awarded 
to them — making in the aggregate, about the sum that we de- 
manded, immediately after the injunction, as the condition of <* 



24 

settlement. The impression which this statement, when clearly 
made, must produce on the public mind, has been distinctly per- 
ceived by the arbitrators, the counsel of the houses, and the sa- 
gacious author of the " Exposition." They have all foreseen 
that every intelligent man would be led to exclaim, — " Cer- 
tainly the houses would not have consented to the sacrifice they 
made, from any other motive than a conviction that the award 
was illegal, and impossible to be sustained." Much anxiety 
is evinced to guard against this inference, and various expla- 
nations are given different from that which we have suggested. 
The possibility that rhe arbitrators had erred, was not to be 
admitted ; and to protect their infallibility, it is deemed expe- 
dient to impute to Mr. Contostavlos and his advisers, a very 
base and dishonourable proceeding. The award, it seems, 
could not have been shaken, and it was sought to be impeach- 
ed on weak and frivolous pretexts. We had no colour of 
right to the moneys that we demanded ; and the large sum 
that we obtained, was yielded not to a sense of justice, but to 
extortion, artifice, or compassion. The houses were alarmed 
by the terrors of forfeiture, or the prospect of a long and vex- 
atious litigation; or they relieved us from a new impulse of 
those benevolent feelings towards the Greeks, of which their 
conduct and correspondence have afforded throughout so con- 
sistent an exhibition. We must begin by acquitting Mr, Con- 
tostavlos from any share of the blame of this transaction, if. 
blame it merits. No portion of it ought to rest on him : he 
placed himself in our hands, and was guided implicitly by our 
advice. If "good faith" were violated by the effort to set 
aside the award, it was violated by us. If the moneys we re- 
ceived were obtained by terror or artifice, we, and we alone, 
were guilty of the extortion or the fraud. A statement of the 
grounds on which we denied the validity of the award, will 
be our sufficient justification. But before we proceed to this, 
we must call the attention of our readers to the manner in 
which the arbitrators, the counsel of the houses, and Mr. Wil- 
liam Bayard, in succession, have explained the motives by 
which the houses were induced to make the compromise in 
question. These explanations deserve attention : they are all 



ingenious ; it is only to be lamented that they are utterly in- 
consistent. The arbitrators say,* that "the bill in Equity was 
" a notice on record and upon oath, that the ships and their 
:; armament were liable to seizure and forfeiture, and was a 
" flagrant provocation to the officers of the government to 
" enforce the law, and an open and undisguised temptation to 
11 the cupidity of common informers, who, by law, would be 
" entitled to one half the value of the ships," he. And thejr 
add — " Under these circumstances they were induced to make 
• c a sacrifice of $12,000 each, in order to secure the residue 
" of their demands under the award." Our legal readers will 
smile at the n?w publicity given to the transaction, by the filing 
of a bill in the clerk's office of the Court of Equity — a pro- 
ceeding, of which the knowledge is usually confined to the 
officers of the court, the parties themselves, and their respec- 
tive counsel. This was to proclaim openly a transaction, of 
which the prominent facts involving its illegality had been for 
weeks as well known in Wall-street, the centre of news and 
curiosity, as any of the mercantile occurrences of the day.f 
We intreat the very serious attention of the reader to 
the explanation here given by the arbitrators. The houses, 
it seems, were induced to make the sacrifice of $12,000 
each, in order to prevent the loss of the residue of their de- 
mands under the award, by the seizure and forfeiture to which, 
in the judgment of the arbitrators, the ships, armament, he. 
were then certainly liable. No admission could well be more 
fatal as it respects the merchants — none more unfortunate as 
it respects the arbitrators themselves. The most serious 
charge — and even at the hazard of wearying our readers, it 
is a subject to which we must again and again recur — the 
most serious charge against the houses is, that in violation of 
the plain sense of their instructions, they had jeoparded the 
immense property entrusted to their honour; and had not 

* Report, p. 46. 

f Who was ignorant that the vessels were building for Greece, and that 
ihe houses had charged 10 per cent, commission ? These two facts were 
alone sufficient to prove the illegality. 

D 



26 

only withheld from the Deputies all knowledge of the peril to 
which their funds were exposed, but had lulled them into con- 
fidence by assurances of their safety. Against this charge 
the defence is, that the information and security which the 
Deputies required were practical, not theoretical. They had 
no desire to know — it was not necessary that they should 
know — what laws were to be found in the statute book, pro- 
vided they were rendered certain that the existing laws would 
not be enforced. This is the security which they contem- 
plated ; and this security, it is added, was provided by the 
" diplomatic skill and address" with which the houses and Ge- 
neral Lallemand had obtained the favour and protection of 
the government. This is the defence which the arbitrators 
adopt, which Messrs. Emmet and Ogden labour to enforce, 
and on which Mr. Bayard finally rests. Yet the arbitrators 
now tell us that the houses made a sacrifice of $12,000 each, 
to avoid the risk of a seizure by the officers of that very go- 
vernment, of whose intention to refrain from any exe/tion of 
authority they had received most unequivocal assurances. Nor 
is this all. They add, that " an open and undisguised temp- 
tation was held out to the cupidity of common informers :" so 
that the fact is at last confessed, that even the favour of the 
government, had it been obtained, could not have availed to 
protect us, since it was in the power of a common informer 
to enforce the penalties of the law, not only without the in- 
tervention of the government, but even in opposition to its 
wishes ! What, we now ask, has become of the security which 
the Deputies required, and which, it is confessed by all, the 
houses were bound to furnish ? And how are we to reconcile 
with these admitted facts, the grave assurance of the arbitra- 
tors, that the houses had complied with their instructions in 
their language and in their spirit ?* 

* See Post, the additional letter of instructions, and the letter from the 
houses to the Deputies. It is lamentable to be compelled to reason about 
the meaning of these documents. No man of common sense can doubt 
that the Deputies mean to say, " You must not place our property in jeo« 
pardy ;" and the bouses to reply, " We will not ; there is no danger." Yet 
it is tbey who labour to explain away this obvious meaning ; who ohaTg;e 
nftoerg with " «?ubt]p. refinements''' and " aMnte reasoning " 



n 

It was impossible for Messrs. Emmet and Ogden to adopt thai 
explanation of the compromise which the arbitrators have given, 
They had contended on the hearing, and it was a main ob- 
ject of their letter to maintain the same doctrine, that the 
operation of building the frigates, so far as it had proceeded, 
\ras not illegal, and that neither the ships, armaments, nor any of 
the materials and stores, were liable to forfeiture. The penal- 
ties of a statute, carefully framed to maintain our neutral 
relations, according to the counsel, do not attach on a ves- 
sel built with the intent of being employed in hostilities with 
a power with whom the United States are at peace, until she 
is in all respects furnished, fitted out, equipped, and ready 
for sea; and even then these penalties are always to be avoided 
by the easy process of giving to the armament the appellation 
of " cargo ;" — the only act, it seems, which the laws of our 
country require to preserve its neutrality. Entertaining these 
opinions which it appears were also those of their clients, the 
counsel could not allege that the houses had submitted to 
the compromise from any apprehension of the seizure of the 
ships, and were therefore driven to assign some other mo- 
tive for the " sacrifice," to which they " consented." We 
cannot compliment them on the prudence of their choice. 
We applied, it seems, to the compassion of the houses, and 
worked upon their generous and benevolent feelings, by re- 
presenting that the monies we required were indispensable to the 
complete equipment of the Hope — that without the aid we 
solicited she could not be dispatched to Greece, and that 
the houses, yielding to their zeal in the cause of humanity 
and freedom granted our prayer ! ! This explanation of his 
counsel, Mr. William Bayard has not deemed it prudent to 
adopt. There were difficulties he was aware in this friendly 
statement, which the public would not fail to perceive. 
The hypothesis was bold but hardly credible, and not easy 
to be reconciled with phenomena already known and observ- 
ed. Mr. Bayard felt it would be ludicrous to speak of the 
" generosity" of those who had exhibited the accounts which 
Mr. Contostavlos had published, and who had persisted in 
claims to the, amount of more than $100,000, which, if alUw- 



ed, the sacrifice and loss to Greece of both the frigates wa^ 
the inevitable consequence. Nor is this all. Mr. Bayard 
had other reasons (of which his counsel were not probabty 
aware) for declining all mention of generosity. During the 
negotiation the Messrs. Bayard and Howland were very natu- 
rally anxious to give to the compulsory deduction on which 
we insisted, the form and appearance of a gratuity. The houses 
offered to open a subscription in behalf of the Greeks, and to 
head it with a donation of $10,000 from each house. We did 
not choose to accept as a bounty what we claimed as a right, 
and we could not be accessary to a delusion on the public. Re- 
jecting, therefore, the aid both of the arbitrators and hi:? 
counsel, Mr. Bayard contents himself with saying that Mr. 
Contostavlos " extorted the sum of $24,000 as the price on 
4i which he would forego his opposition, and release them 
" (i. e. the houses) from a vexatious and protracted litigation in 
" chancery." To which we reply, as we have already shown, 
that if the aivard could have been supported, by the oath of the 
arbitrators, this " vexatious and protracted litigation" must 
have terminated within a few weeks. 

We proceed more directly to answer the charge of having 
committed a gross violation of good faith by our refusal to 
submit to the decision of the arbitrators. We do not deny 
that good faith required that Mr. Contostavlos and his coun- 
sel should abide by the agreement that was made ; and if the 
arbitrators acted fairly and within the scope of their powers, 
we were certainly bound to comply with their award ; if other- 
wise, it was not merely our right, but, under the circumstances, 
our duty, to seek the redress that we obtained. 

Our defence is, that the arbitrators did abuse and did ex- 
ceed their powers. We shall select a few of the prominent ob- 
jections to the award as exhibited in Mr. Contostavlos' bill, 
and shall submit them, with very little comment, to the judg- 
ment of the profession, and all intelligent men. On this sub- 
ject there is fortunately no mystery in the law ; but its rules 
are consonant to those of reason and common sense. Every 
thinking man, who has just notions of morality, will be able to 
determine for himself on the probable truth of the assertion. 



39 

» 

" that the award ol" the arbitrators could not iiave been slia- 
" ken." There are some positions of such revolting absurdity, 
that even the highest authority is insufficient to impose them 
on public belief. Our readers shall be enabled to judge 
whether the assertion, that the award was valid, is not fairly 
to be numbered in this class. 

It appeared by a comparison of the receipts produced, with 
the corresponding items in the accounts of the houses, that large 
balances were included in these accounts which were still due 
to various individuals who had furnished supplies for the 
ships. These balances amounted to more than forty thou- 
sand dollars, and for the payment of them, the ships them- 
selves were probably bound. We might have insisted, 
this cannot be doubted — nor was it indeed denied — that 
these outstanding claims should be deducted from the ac- 
counts, and by so doing we should have saved the mercantile 
commissions of the houses. We however consented that the 
arbitrators should have the right to include these balances in 
the accounts of the houses, on condition that the receipts in full 
of the persons to whom they were due, should be produced 
before the award was made. To this condition the houses as- 
sented ; they engaged to produce the receipts ; and the ar- 
bitrators, on their part, expressly agreed to provide that the mo- 
neys should not be paid over to the houses until these necessary 
vouchers were produced.* No trace of this agreement ap- 
pears in the report of the arbitrators ; but to the fact that it 
was made, openly and positively made, we pledge our per- 
sonal veracity. The award of the arbitrators shows that by 
them the agreement was forgotten or disregarded. They di- 
rect the immediate payment to the houses of sums they award- 
ed to be due, without any exception of unsatisfied balances; 
and they tender to the Deputies the personal indemnity of 
the houses against the outstanding claims on the ships, in- 
stead of providing for their actual extinction, as we had required, 
and as had been solemnly promised.* This personal guaran- 

* See Mr. Contostavlos' Narrative, p. 74. ; whose statement on thh 
subject has not been denied by the arbitrators in their report. 



'JO 

ty of the houses was not the security which the counsel of 
the deputies had demanded. It was a security which for many 
reasons we were extremely unwilling to accept, and which 
the arbitrators had no right, nor the shadow of a right, to 
compel the deputies to take ; we believed that this was a very 
improper exercise of the power of the arbitrators, and consi- 
dered it a fatal objection to their award. 

2d. It was insisted on the part of the deputies, that they 
were entitled to interest on the large balances which remained 
unexpended in the hands of the houses from the commence- 
ment until nearly the close of the operation ; and the claim 
was in itself so just and reasonable that it could not well be 
denied. In principle it Was admitted by the arbitrators, but 
they in a great measure deprived us of the benefit of their ad- 
mission by the gross mistakes which they suffered to infect 
their calculations. These mistakes are apparent on the face 
of the accounts delivered with the award. The arbitrators 
erroneously, and very erroneously, assumed the 28th of No- 
vember as a common epoch from which they allowed interest 
to the houses on the disbursements, and they included in those 
disbursements the commissions of the houses, thus swelling the 
amount to more than $80,000 beyond the sum actually ex- 
pended. This was not only contrary to mercantile usage, but 
no such claim had been advanced by the houses or the coun- 
sel ; no such item is found in the interest accounts stated and 
exhibited in behalf of the houses, of which we have copies 
now before us. The effect of these palpable and not 
very excusable errors, was to reduce the balance of interest 
allowed to the deputies to the sum of $4,126. Whereas, had 
an interest account been fairly stated, excluding the commis- 
sions, and allowing to the deputies interest on the balances, 
and crediting the houses with interest on their disbursements 
of each month, it would have exibited a balance in favour of 
the deputies of more than $1 5,000.f To correct mistakes of 
this description is the province of a court of equity, and it is 

* Rep. p. 41. 4th and 6th article of the award. 

f This appears by the accounts (A. B.) which we publish in the ap- 
pendix, and which were carefully framed under our direction upon vouchers 



3) 

a power which even in relation to awards, has been frequently 
exercised. In seeking the correction, we believed that we 
were not violating good faith, but promoting the interests of 
justice, and discharging our duty to our clients. 

3rd. It will not, we presume, be asserted, (although even 
for assertions as bold as this we are not unprepared,) that the 
powers of the arbitrators were quite unlimited and discretion- 
ary. If not, then, according to the terms and the spirit of the 
submission which conferred and defined their authority, they 
had certainly no right to compel the Deputies to pay moneys 
as disbursed by the houses, which the houses themselves never 
claimed, and of the disbursement of which not only no proof 
was given, but not even an allegation made. Yet this the 
arbitrators, by their award, attempted to do. They allowed 
to the Messrs. Howland $3,089 28, and to the Messrs. Bay- 
ard $2,531 33, " as a banking commission on London," on 
bills remitted by them to their respective correspondents.* By 
11 a banking commission on London," we understood (nor did 

exhibited on the hearing. To these accounts we request the careful attention 
of our mercantile readers ; as they show the moneys unexpended in the 
hands of the houses, and the dates of their alleged disbursements. They 
reflect a strong light on the question of commission, and demonstrate that 
of all the pretences that have been employed to cover extortion and injus- 
tice, that of an " extraordinary risk" incurred by the houses, is the most 
sophistical and untrue. , 

*(See the accounts of the arbitrators, Narrative, p. 84-5.) The reader 
may be puzzled to account for the difference in the sums allowed to the 
housss, " as a banking commission" — a difference in favour of the Messrs. 
Howland of more than $500, although the bills remitted by the Messrs. 
Bayard in fact exceeded by £1,000 those of the Messrs. Howland. The 
explanation is this : In the bills stated to have been remitted to Mr. S. 
Williams, is included the draft of the £3d May, for £12,500 sterling, which 
was collected in full from the Messrs. Ricardo, but a portion of the pro- 
ceeds of which was lost to the Messrs. Howland by Williams's failure. The 
corresponding draft of the Messrs. Bayard in favour of the Barings, is omit- 
ted in the arbitrators' statement of their account. Is it an uncharitable 
surmise that the $500 were intended as a proof to the Messrs. Howland, 
that the arbitrators " felt the hardship of their case," and if they could not 
Tjnnn<""^p. u^rp at least disposed to alleviate their lo c ? ? 



32 

it seem to us that the terms were susceptible of any other in- 
terpretation) a commission paid to the bankers in London, for 
the collection of the bills remitted. No charge of this nature 
was made by the houses ; no such item is contained in their 
accounts. It was not proved nor pretended that this commis- 
sion had been charged against them, or exacted from them 
by their respective correspondents. We deemed its allow- 
ance, therefore, an act of gross and palpable injustice. In 
making such an allowance, the arbitrators, in our judgment, 
exceeded the authority they possessed, and abused that which 
they assumed : and had we omitted to obtain redress for our 
clients, we should indeed have been wanting " in good faith" 
to them, and to the sacred cause we had undertaken to de- 
fend. By the author of the Report of the Arbitrators, all 
that we have said was understood and felt. Judge Piatt 
(whom we make no apology for considering as the author) 
was perfectly aware — he could not be otherwise — that the ob- 
jection to the award, which we have stated, was of itself deci- 
sive and fatal ; and that the facts, unless they could be denied, 
or explained away, admitted of no other conclusion. The 
facts, we beg our readers to observe, he has not attempted to 
deny : he has not asserted that any claim for a banking com- 
mission in London was included in the accounts of the houses, 
or any evidence given that such a commission had been paid 
or charged. The answer of Judge Piatt is — it is the only 
answer — that a commission of this kind is not that which the 
arbitrators intended to allow. They call it, to be sure, a 
banking commission in London ; but this they did not mean I* 
" The houses charged 2h per cent, on all the bills drawn by 
" them on the bankers of the Deputies in London ; and the 
" arbitrators came to the conclusion that their claims should 
" be reduced to one per cent., and confined to a part of the 
" bills only ;" although they deem it unnecessary to give " a 
minute detail of the reasons and discriminations which led 
them to this result." 

: ' Keport, p. «?. 



Grounds of impeaching Award, 33 

The temptation is great, but the subject is far too serious 
lor ridicule. We mourn over this explanation. We lament 
that Judge Piatt had not the magnanimity to confess an error 
it was impossible to defend: that to avoid such a confession, 
he has sunk from the elevation of truth and candour, on which 
we hoped to meet him. Still more deeply do we regret that 
his associates should have affixed their names, without exami- 
nation or reflection, to the report which he prepared. Had 
they considered, with any attention, the passage to which we 
have referred, we cling to the belief that the statement it con- 
tains would have been indignantly expunged. We desire to 
abstain — we hope we have abstained — from all unnecessary 
harshness ; but we must be explicit. We have no wish to pro- 
vide for ourselves that retreat which the shelter of language, 
that seems to be decorous, but is meant to be equivocal, too 
often affords. As we cannot believe the explanation of Judge 
Piatt to be true, we find ourselves compelled to say so. We 
do not believe, we cannot believe — the public will not, and 
cannot believe, — that a commission charged by the merchants 
in New-York, on bills drawn here — deducted from the pro- 
ceeds of those bills as credited to their principals, and so 
charged and so deducted, not only according to the invaria- 
ble usage of merchants, but in the very accounts produced to 
the arbitrators, — was intended to be allowed, although re- 
duced, under the name of a banking commission in London. 
With as much propriety might it have been called " a bank- 
ing commission in Paris or St. Petersburg!]." There, is no 
connexion between the name and the thing ; and the terms 
employed when thus applied, have lost their meaning. We 
are confirmed in our disbelief of the explanation, because we 
have no doubt whatever of the true causes that led to the in- 
sertion of the banking commission in the accounts of the 
arbitrators. 

On his cross-examination, Mr. James King stated, in an- 
swer to a question from Mr. Emmet, that it is the practice of 
the bankers in London to charge a commission of one per 
cent, on bills accepted or collected by them on account of their 
customers. When Mr. Emmet came to address the arbitra- 

B 



34 Grounds of impeaching Award, 

tors on the question of our right to an interest account, he 
suggested, that if interest were allowed to the Deputies, this 
banking commission in London should be credited as a set-off 
to the hoses : and this suggestion, unauthorised as it was by 
the accounts, and alike unsupported by argument and by 
evidence,* the arbitrators hastily and incautiously adopted. 
That they did this, we cannot doubt, when we observe that 
the commission is charged in the arbitrators' accounts at the 
very rate to which Mr. King testified, and under the very 
name that Mr. Emmet had given it ; and that it appears as a 
separate and independent charge, and is confined to those bills 
only which the houses actually remitted to their bankers in Lon- 
don for collection. We will only add, that the effect of Mr. 
Emmet's suggestion was, that the Deputies, instead of deriv- 
ing any benefit from our claim of interest on their behalf, had 
the balance, by virtue of this set-off, thrown against them; so 
that even an admitted claim served only to increase the sum 
we were compelled to pay. We abstain from further comment, 
and leave our readers to judge of the motives that induced 
the arbitrators not to dwell on " the reasons and discrimina- 
" tions that led them to reduce the 2 ' per cent, commission of 
" the houses to one per cent., and confine it to a part of the 
" bills only." 

4th. We have said enough, we believe, in explanation of 
our motives for impeaching the award, and in defence of the 
position that the arbitrators abused and exceeded their pow- 
ers. • But there still remains an objection, to which it is our 
duty to advert, as it is one which the arbitrators, with what 
success remains to be seen, have endeavoured to obviate. We 



* It is obvious, that had it even been proved that the houses had paid this 
commission to their correspondents, it would not have been chargeable to 
the Deputies. There was no necessity for the course that the houses pur- 
sued in remitting their bills ; it was not contemplated by their instructions ; 
and the Deputies could not be liable for an expense occasioned by an un- 
authorised act of their agents, adopted solely with a view to their own inter- 
est or convenience. The Deputies would no more have been liable to re- 
fund this commission, had it been paid, than they were liable to make 
good the loss of the Messrs. Howland. 



Grounds of impeaching Award. 35 

refer to the sum of $1,500 awarded by the arbitrators to Cap- 
tain Chauncey, in addition to the $10,000 which he had re- 
ceived under his contract. We shall not dwell on the extrava- 
gant injustice (it is the only combination of terms that can 
expre s our meaning) of this claim of Captain Chauncey. It 
has been sufficiently exposed,* and on this point there is, we 
imagine, very little diversity in public opinion. But had the 
claim been just and reasonable, we deny that the arbitrators 
had any right to consider or allow it. It was not covered by 
the submission — it was not included in the accounts of the 
houses — it had not been preferred or mentioned before the 
close of the hearing — and the counsel for the Deputies had no 
opportunity of contesting its propriety, or proving that the 
arbitrators were not authorised to admit it. They included 
it, however, in the gross sum awarded to the houses ; and if 
without authority, as it could not be separated, it infected and 
annulled the entire award. On this subject, the arbitrators 
enter into no professed or formal defence of their conduct; but 
they intimate in their report, that the claim of Capt. Chaun- 
cey was allowed under a parole agreement of the counsel, that 
vouchers might be produced and credited after the hearing, f 
The very defence, our readers will observe, admits that the 
arbitrators had no right to allow the claim under the terms of 
the submission ; and unless the power was derived from the 
agreement of the counsel, there was a total defect of autho- 
rity. In a former part of their report, J the arbitrators stre- 
nuously insist that the counsel could not bind their clients 
even by a written agreement : but they now repose themselves 
with perfect assurance on the parole agreement of the same 
counsel, and give to it all the effect of a submission under seal 
of the parties. We could authorise the arbitrators, it seems, 
to pay over the funds of the Deputies, to any extent, in satis- 
faction of claims which they, by their only attorney, had never 
agreed to submit ; but we could not protect the arbitrators 
against the " risks and responsibilities of their trust;" for if 

* Narrative, p. 67, 8, 9; also Refutation, p. 11, 12, 13. 
f Report, p. 37-40. J Ibid. p. 8. 



36 Grounds of impeaching Award. 

these had ceased, the personal compensation which they ex- 
acted would have been, in a great measure, without conside- 
ration or apology. The contradiction is somewhat striking ; 
but we shall not dwell on it, but admit, that if the arbitrators 
were authorised, by our parole agreement, to admit the claim 
of Captain Chauncey. their justification is so far complete. 
We deny, however, that any agreement was made, which, by 
any fair interpretation, could empower the arbitrators to allow 
this claim. 

We agreed, (as has been already stated,) that the arbitra- 
tors should have the right to include, in the disbursements 
of the houses, the unsatisfied balances on charges stated in the 
accounts, provided the necessary vouchers of payment were 
produced : and we further agreed that the houses should, 
in any event, be allowed for current expenses, defrayed by 
them, accruing after the date of the submission. But in nei- 
ther of these classes was the claim of Captain Chauncey in- 
cluded. His claim was for services from the first of March ; 
so that the greater part of it had accrued before the submis- 
sion was made. It was not, therefore, " a current expense, ac- 
cruing after the date of the submission ;" still less was it an 
" unsatisfied balance." In the accounts of the houses, $10,000 
are charged as paid to Capt. Chauncey, for his services ; but 
no portion of this remained due. He had received it all. There 
were also charged $14,000, paid to Captain Chauncey on his 
requisitions : but this sum, it was admitted, was intended for 
disbursements to be made by him, in relation to the ships. He 
was bound to apply the whole to this object. He had no right 
to retain any portion of it to his own use. He was therefore 
called to account for its expenditure ; and when the arbitra- 
tion had nearly closed, he produced his vouchers. They show- 
ed an expenditure of $12,500; but they also showed that 
Captain Chauncey had still in his hands $1,500 unexpended. 
It was therefore obvious that this sum, as unaccounted for, 
was to be deducted from the accounts of the houses. This we 
claimed ; nor was the justice of the claim denied ; — and when 
the arbitration closed, we fully expected that the deduction 
would be made. It was our fate, however, to be disappointed 
in this exDectation, as in manv other hopes that we had che- 



Commissions. 37 

rished. Had the deduction been made, the houses would have 
been under the necessity of looking to Capt. Chauncey for 
the repayment of the sum deducted, and Captain Chauncey 
would have been liable to them for its payment. This would 
probably have been disagreeable to both parties ; but the de- 
cision of the arbitrators operated to their mutual relief, by 
allowing the whole sum to Captain Chauncey, for his services, 
on a claim that had never been heard of, until the state of his 
vouchers disclosed the propriety of its existence.* 

Such was the award that could not have been shaken, and 
which it was criminal to attempt to disturb. That we have 
by no means enumerated all the objections to which it is lia- 
ble, will hereafter appear. We shall now proceed to consi- 
der, in succession, the claims of the houses, as exhibited on 
the hearing — as supported, opposed, rejected, or adopted. In 
the course of this examination, it will be seen to what extent 
the report of the arbitrators is chargeable with errors and 
omissions materially affecting the merits of the case. 

We begin with the commissions ; in relation to which we 
shall first exhibit, in contrast, the evidence as actually given 
by the witnesses, and as stated by the arbitrators. It is unne- 
cessary to state the testimony of those witnesses with respect 
to which we do not complain of the report of the arbitrators. 

* Io the accounts of the houses, of expenses accruing after the hearing, 
(see Nar. p. 81-83, Nos. 4 and 6,) the reader will find a charge of an ad- 
ditional payment to Captain Chauncey, of 500 dollars by each house ; and 
will naturally ask why this payment was made to a man who had already 
1,500 dollars unexpended in his hands. The answer is this : On the same 
day that the additional accouots were delivered to the arbitrators, Captain 
Chauncey had presented his claim for his services, to the amount of more 
than 2,500 dollars. This the arbitrators could not award to him directly, 
for he was not a party to the submission. It could only be allowed by in- 
cluding it in the disbursements of the houses ; and to enable the arbitra- 
tors to do this, the additional 1000 dollars are charged as actually paid. As 
the arbitrators would go no further than to allow to Captain Chauncey the 
balance before in his hands, the additional 1000 dollars was struck from 
the accounts of the houses, not, il may be hoped, much to their prejudice. 
This concert of action and views between Captain Chauncey and the 
houses, is very edifying, and if it existed to an equal extent throughout the 
operation, must have been verv beneficial to Greece. 



38 



Evidence as to Commissions. 



For the purpose of avoiding all mistake, the notes taken of 
the evidence of the witnesses named below, have been shown to 
them ; and the ,'ollowing statement of their evidence, taken 
from those notes, with some very slight corrections made by 
the witnesses themselves, has been approved by them respec- 
tively. 



H. D. Sewall. 
Report of the JLrbiti ators. 

" Henry D. Sewall, merchant, 
a witness for the Deputies, testi- 
fied that the usual commission 
for disbursing money in repairing 
ships, is 2\ per cent, if goods 
are consigned to several houses 
jointly, and part sold by one and 
part by the other, no more than 
one commission of 2i per cent, 
is usually charged. If the factor 
draws bills instead of receiving 
the money, it is usual to charge 
one per cent, on the bills. Re- 
fers to the regulations of Cham- 
ber of Commerce. 

" Cross-examined. On foreign 
business, he thinks 5 per cent, 
commission a justifiable charge ; 
though he thinks it good policy 
generally to charge less. If he 
drew foreign bills to reimburse 
for advances, he should think 
himself entitled to 2i per cent, 
commission on the bills, in addi- 
tion to the 5 per cent, for the 
purchases. If he were to divide 
the business with another house 
here, no more than single com- 
mission would be charged He 
would not engage to build a fri- 
gate for a foreign government 
without guaranty. It is a busi- 
ness aside from all mercantile 
usage. If he had the security of 
a house of first respectability, he 
would charge 5 per cent, for 
building a ship. 

" According to mercantile 
usage, no more than 5 per cent. 



H. D. Sewali/s 

Testimony as given. 

Has never charged more than 
2| per cent, for purchases, nor 
for disbursements for repairs of 
vessels ; never more even where 
his personal attention was given. 

When two houses are employ- 
ed, the commission is divided. 
This he has done in cases of 
sales, with Goodhue, and with 
Osborn. If he had to draw bills, 
would charge a commission : if 
he had a confirmed credit on a 
house of the highest character in 
London, he would charge one 
per cent, on bills. If 5 per cent, 
were charged by any person on 
disbursements, they would not 
thereby consider themselves pre- 
cluded from charging a commis- 
sion on bills. 

The rates of commission in 
the articles of the Chamber of 
Commerce, are considered as the 
very highest. He has known de- 
ductions, never an increase. 

Cross-examined. There is 
sometimes a difference between 
commissions on foreign and do- 
mestic business- He would con- 
sider himself strictly entitled to 
charge 5 per cent, on sales of 
goods and on purchases, because 
that is authorised by the regula- 
tions of the Chamber of Com- 
merce : but he should not consi- 
der it good policy to do so and 
should not do it, if he ever ex- 
pected to get again the business 
of the house for whom he acted. 



Evidence as to Coimnissions. 



39 



is charged tor extra risks, with- 
out express stipulation. 

11 Direct. If he had funds in 
hand, he should think he had a 
right to charge 5 per cent, com- 
mission, but that he should allow 
interest." 



He should consider himself enti- 
tled to charge 2£ per cent, for 
drawing bills, when he had not 
funds in hand, and had the re- 
sponsibility of the bills. He 
would not engage in building a 
frigate, without funds in hand, 
or a guaranty in behalf of a go- 
vernment whose stock was 50 
per cent, under par. If the house 
on ivhich a credit of £25,000 
sterling was opened, was of the 
first respectability, he should 
think that a sufficient guaranty. 

He should consider himself as 
undertaking, in any case, for the 
ordinary commission, and should 
not consider himself entitled, 
without stipulation, to charge 
more than the regular commis- 
sion. 

Should consider himself strict- 
ly entitled, even with money in 
hand, to charge 5 per cent, on 
disbursements, for the reason 
above stated, on account of the 
regulations of the Chamber of 
Commerce. In practice, he ne- 
ver would make a charge, on 
drawing bills, of 21 per cent., 
when he had money in hand. He 
would charge one per cent, when 
he acted as banker. 

Being asked what he would 
charge when he had to meet in 
committee two or three times a 
week, and for going frequently 
to the ship-yards, he answered, 
that he should never charge more 
than the usual commission, what- 
ever trouble he might have, un- 
less he expressly stipulated for it. 



William W. Russel. Report of the Arbitrators. 

" William W. Russel, commission merchant, (witness for De- 
puties,) testified, that usual commission is 2i per cent, for disburse- 
ments, and t\ per cent, for drawing foreign bills for reimburse- 
ments. In case of joint consignees, there is but one commission. 
He has in one case charged 5 per cent, on expenditures, and 2£ on 



4* 



Evidence as to Commissions. 



the bills. When there are two consignees, they divide the com- 
mission." 

Mr. Russel explained the single instance of charging 5 per 
cent, for disbursements, by saying, that it was an order for 
munitions of war : that the articles were difficult to be pro- 
cured ; that the disbursements were inconsiderable, and the 
trouble great. And when asked if he would have charged 
more than 2£ per cent, for disbursements, if the amount had 
been $50,000, he answered in the negative. 



George W. Talbot. 

Report of the Arbitrators. 

" George W. Talbot, mer- 
chant, (witness for the Deputies,) 
testifies, that he charges commis- 
sion on purchase of goods at 21 
per cent., and 5 per cent, for 
repairing vessels, independent of 
drawing bills. There cannot be 
two commissions on the same 
agency." 



George W. Talbot's 

Testimony as given. 

Charges 21 per cent, on pur- 
chasing goods. Should charge 
21 per cent, on bills, if he had to 
draw. Considers himself entitled 
to charge 5 per cent, for dis- 
bursements on ship business. If 
no risk incurred, he thinks 21 
would be taken. 

Can't conceive of such a case 
as two houses each charging a 
separate commission on the same 
transaction. The charges of 
which he has spoken , apply where 
there is no special contract. 

If he felt perfectly easy about 
the funds, he would do the busi- 
ness for 2i per cent. 



Jonathan Ogden. 

Report of the Arbitrators. 

" Jonathan Ogden, merchant, 
(a witness for the Deputies) tes- 
tified, that usual commission for 
disbursements in fitting out ships, 
is 5 per cent, without funds in 
hand ; that is, 21 for the expen- 
ditures, and 21 for drawing bills. 
Was never emploved to build a 
ship." 



Jonathan Ogden's 

Testimony as given. 

•He presumes 5 per cent, the 
regular charge. He should 
charge 6 per cent, where he had 
to disburse and draw bills, if 
there was no risk. 

To question by Mr. De Rham. 
— He should think 5 per cent, 
the extreme for disbursements 
and drawing, no matter what 
trouble. 

Cross-examined. Never had 
charge of building a ship. — 
Don't know that he is competent 
to answer. At present, not pre? 



Evidence as to Commissions. 



41 



pared to say what commission he 
would charge. 

To question by Mr. Duer.-~ 
Certainly would not charge more 
on building ships than 5 per 
ct. for disbursements and draw- 
ing, if he undertook it, without 
giving notice of his intention thus 
to charge. 

Is in the habit of charging lj 
per cent, for drawing bills. 



George Barclay. 

Report of the Arbitrators. 

li George Barclay, merchant, 
[witness for the Deputies,) testi- 
fies, that the usual commission 
for disbursements is 5 per cent, 
when he draws bills for reim- 
bursement. The house of Ri- 
cardo is very respectable. If 
he had a confirmed credit, he 
should charge 5 per cent, for 
building a ship for a foreign cor- 
respondent." 



George Barclay's 

Testimony as given. 

His house, Henry <$f George 
Barclay, charge 5 per cent, for 
disbursements, including com- 
missions on drawing bills. This 
is the highest charge. His house 
are agents for the Underwriters 
at Lloyd's, and in the frequent 
habit of procuring repairs, to a 
very considerable extent, upon 
damaged vessels. Invariably 
charge 5 per cent., including 
drawing bills. Always divide the 
commission in case of a joint 
consignment. 

Knows the Ricardos, from 
reputation ; a very respectable 
house. Furnished with a letter 
of credit on them, would not he- 
sitate to undertake the busi- 
ness, unless to a very exorbitant 
amount. 

Cross-examined. Have had 
vessels to repair belonging to 
their own correspondents. When 
we get a full commission, never 
charge on the bills. Optional 
with the captains to put the 
goods damaged in our hand's. 
Not more than once in three do 
we get the consignment of da- 
maged goods. Should consider 
5 per cent, a sufficient commis- 
sion for building, when he had 
confidence in the house on which 
lie drew. Without a confirmed 
credit, he would decline a com- 



42 



Evidence as to Commissions. 



John R, Hitrd. 

Report of the Arbtrators. 

" John R. Hurd merchant, 
(witness for the Deputies,) says 
commissions vary from 2 J- to 5 
per cent, for disbursements, 
independent of drawing bills. 
Commissions always divided 
where several consignees." 



mission in favour of a govern- 
ment whose bills were at 50 per 
cent, discount. 

Being asked if he would trust 
the Ricardos for $ 100,000, he 
answered that he would. 

Being asked if he would 
charge the usual commissions 
on a transaction to the extent 
that the houses had gone, he an- 
swered that he would ; and that 
the' larger the amount, the less 
would he the commissions he 
should be willing to undertake it 
for. 

John R. Hurd's 

Testimony as given. 

Commissions on foreign busi- 
ness, 5 ,rer cent, the highest. 
This include* a commission on 
bills. When he draws bills, in- 
dependent of any other business, 
charges from 1 to 2 per cent, for 
drawing the bills. 

Being asked at what rate he 
would do the business, if he had 
not full confidence in the house 
on which he drew — he answer- 
ed, that in such a case he would 
not do the business ; but if he 
had confidence in the house, he 
would charge only the usual 
commissions. 



Peter Harmony.* 

In this gentleman's testimony, the arbitrators have omitted 
the statement of the witness, that he never had a case of a 
joint commission or consignment. 

James Boorman. James Boorman's 

Report 'if the Arbitrators. Testimony as given. 

" James Boorman, merchant, The regular commission on 
(a witness for the Deputies,) purchases of goods, is 5 percent. 
says the regular commission on for disbursements and drawing 



This has not h<*en shown to Mr. Harmonv. 



Evidence as to Commissions. 43 

purchases of goods is 5 per cent., bills Only a single commission 
and single commissions only in on a consignment to two houses, 
case of* consignment to two He never heard of a case of 
persons." charging two commissions on 

the same transaction. 

Cross-examined. Says he does 
not mean to speak at all of the 
building of frigates. 

Samuel Hicks. Report of the Arbitrators. 

11 Samuel Hicks, merchant, (a witness for the Deputies,) says 
fhe usual commission for building or repairing vessels, is 2-i per 
cent, for advances, and 2| per cent, for drawing bills. In con- 
tracting with a foreign government he should think it more ha- 
zardous ; and he would not contract for a ship of war tor any com- 
missions. Would not contract for so large amount ; but if he did 
undertake, would not think it right to charge more afterwards." 

Those who do not know that Mr. Hicks belongs to the So- 
ciety of Friends, (and there may be such among the readers 
of the Report of the Arbitrators, notwithstanding the exten- 
sive reputation of Mr. H. a* a merchant, would infer, espe- 
cially from the words "ship of war" being in italics, that Mr. 
Hicks meant to say that there was a peculiar risk attending 
the building of ships of war. We feel confident that any per- 
son who heard Mr Hicks, must have understood that when he 
spoke of ships of war, he referred to his religious principles, 
and not to the risk. 

Whether this be so or not, Mr. Hicks afterwards stated, 
that if he went i to the business of builing frigates, he should 
not consider himself entitled to charge any more than 2$ per 
cent, for disbursements, and 1\ for drawing bills, 

Mr. Bcrckle. 

Mr. H. D. Sedgwick his noticed an important omission by 
the arbitraors in their report of this gentleman's testimony — 
viz. that he would have charged 10 per cent, commissions 
with funds in hand. Upon this Mr. Sedjrwick founded his 
remark, that upon the testimony of this witness it was unne- 
cessary to comment. This Messrs. Emmet and Ogd^n have 
referred to, as if it were intended to impeach Mr Burckle's 
veracity. This is not so. All that was intended, was to shew 



44 



Evidence as to Commissions. 



that his opinions could be of no authority. Injustice to Mr. 
Burckle, it ought to be added that he is a foreigner, has not 
been long resident in this city, and cannot be supposed to be 
acquainted with its mercantile usages. 



George Griswold. 

Report of the Arbitrators. 

" George Griswold, mer- 
chant, (witness for the Deputies) 
says the usual commission for 
selling goods is 2|- per cent., 
and 1± per cent, for drawing 
bills on confirmed credits ; but 
practice is variable. Commis- 
sion for repairing vessels is more 
than on sale of goods. For build- 
ing ships, and drawing bills to 
reimburse, 5 per cent. When 
two persons execute an agency, 
they divide the commissions ; 
each takes half" 



George Griswold's 

Testimony as given. 

For disbursements on pur- 
chase of goods charges c 2.\ per 
cent, commissions. He should 
suppose with a confirmed credit, 
that the commission did not ex- 
ceed from 1 to \\ per cent, for 
drawing bills. If the sum was 
very large, he should suppose 
the commission less, if a per- 
fectly safe operation. He should 
think 5 per cent, the extent of 
both. 

Usual, when there is any thing 
extra, or out of the usual course. 
to state it, and make an agree- 
ment accordingly. 

Never knew nor heard of two 
houses each charging a commis- 
sion for the same thing. If two 
houses undertake to build toge- 
ther, that is a matter between 
them. 



Before we proceed to state the grounds on which we denied 
that the houses were entitled to any compensation — a point 
that the arbitrators have wholly omitted to notice — we shall 
make a few observations that are suggested by the evidence 
that has been exhibited. The 'houses charged 2h percent, 
commissions on the bills which they had drawn ; and they also 
claimed a commission of 5 per cent, to each house on the 
whole amount of their disbursements:* that is, each house 
claimed that commission, not only on its own disbursements, 
but on those of the other. It was not pretended that the com- 
missions were charged in this manner, as a mode which the 
bouses had adopted to divide a single commission of 10 per 



* The aggregate amount of the commissions exceeded 100,000 dollars. 



Double Commissions. 4") 

cent. No claim of a commission at this rate was made or al- 
luded to in the accounts ; and on the hearing, it was expressly 
and strenuously insisted that the houses were under no obli- 
gation to divide their commissions, but that each was sepa- 
rately entitled to the same commission as if it had separately 
performed the whole services, and defrayed the whole ex- 
penses. It was therefore admitted, that 5 per cent, was charg- 
ed as a full commission ; as the sole commission to which 
either of the houses would have been entitled, had it singly 
made the whole disbursements ; and their separate right to 
which, it was insisted, was not affected by their union in the 
same trust. 

Tt was against this extraordinary pretension of a double 
full commission, our readers have seen, that a large por- 
tion of our evidence was directed, and in support of it some 
witnesses, particularly Messrs. Harmony and Burckle, were 
examined on behalf of the houses. If we were successful 
in proving, that by the established usage of the merchants 
of this city, where an agency is entrusted to several, a sin- 
gle commission only can be charged — in other words, that 
all receive and divide the same commission, as if one only 
had been employed — we expected, as a natural and necessary 
consequence of our success, that the commission of 5 per cent., 
instead of being allowed to each house, would have been di- 
vided between them ; or, which would have had the same 
effect, that the commission of each house, as charged, would 
be limited to its own expenditures. We therefore confidently 
hoped, that by defeating this pretension of the houses, more 
than $40,000 of the funds of Greece would have been saved. 
We were, however, disappointed — lamentably disappointed. 
The evidence of mercantile usage that we adduced, was indeed 
most clear and decisive — too much so, to be disregarded or 
resisted. The arbitrators were therefore compelled to reject, 
and did reject, the claim of the houses to a commission on the 
expenditures of each other. 

But the rejection was most barren and fruitless — it was a 
mockery, and not a relief; for the houses are immediately in- 
demnified, by an allowance of 10 per cent, commission on the 



46 Double Commissions. 

same disbursements on which they had ignorantly claimed 
only five. The Messrs. Howland had claimed, on the dis- 
bursements of the Liberator, somewhat more than $20,000, 
The arbitrators give them more than $40,000. Nineteen 
thousand and some hundred dollars were charged by the 
Messrs. Bayard, on the disbursements of the Hope. The 
arbitrators correct the error, and double the amount. We 
shall not now discuss the reasons that the arbitrators have 
assigned to justify their allowance of 10 per cent, as a fair 
and reasonable commission ; but against the allowance itself, 
we do most earnestly protest, as an unauthorised act of power. 
No such claim was presented, exhibited, or discussed on the 
hearing. Neither the evidence of the witnesses, nor the argu- 
ments of the counsel, were directed to meet it. No such claim 
was intended, or could have been intended by Mr. Contostav- 
los, to be submitted to the decision of the arbitrators ; nor 
could their powers, upon a legal or reasonable interpretation, 
be construed to embrace it. 

The preamble to the submission recites, that a controversy 
had arisen between the Deputies and the houses, respecting cer- 
tain charges, claims, and accounts of the houses, growing out 
of the contract for the building. of the frigates; and the viibmis- 
sion then proceeds to refer those claims and accounts to the 
arbitration of the persons named. What, we would ask, are 
the claims and accounts here referred to ? Plainly those 
which the houses had previously exhibited to Mr Contostav- 
los, and which he had refused to admit or allow: and the 
controversy which the arbitrators were called to decide, and 
to the decision of which their powers were meant to be limit- 
ed, was the controversy that had " thus arisen." Had the 
preamble, indeed, been less explicit, or hud it been altogether 
omitted, still the construction of the submission, on general 
principles, would have been the same. It has been solemnly 
determined," that the powers of arbitrators, even where the 
terms of the submission are unlimited, are confined to the 
settlement of differences existing at the time of the submit 

* Rnvee w. Farmer, 4 Term Rep. 



Double Commissions. 47 

sion. And the reason approves itself at once to the judgment 
and the conscience : as no other differences are within the 
knowledge of the parties, none other can they intend to sub- 
mit. When the houses and Mr. Contostavlos agreed to submit 
their controversy to arbitration, there was no difference be- 
tween them in relation to a commission of 10 per cent., for 
no claim to such a commission had been advanced or pre- 
tended ; — for aught that the arbitrators could have known, had 
such been made, it would not have been referred to their de- 
cision. The question which the arbitrators were called to 
decide, was, whether the houses should be compelled to divide 
a commission of 5 per cent. ; — and the power which they 
assume and exercise, is to allow and divide a commission of 
double the amount. 

In answer* to all our complaints on this subject, the arbi- 
trators gravely assure the public, that the result to the Greeks 
was precisely the same as if the commissions had been allowed 
in the manner they were charged. True. And the same 
answer could have been given, had the arbitrators rejected 
any other unjust pretension of the houses, and had sought to 
compensate them by the admission of another claim, to an 
equal amount before unheard of. The arbitrators refused the 
damages claimed on the protested bills. Had they, without 
claim and without proof, added their amount to the disburse- 
ments of the houses, the reply th t " it was the same thing in 
amount to the Greeks," whether the sum was allowed as da- 
mages or disbursements, would have been equally suitable 
and satisfactory. That the result to the Greeks is the same, 
is precisely the ground of our complaint. We complain that, 
having defeated, on the clearest evidence, a most unfounded 
claim, we derived no benefit from our success ; that its fruits 
were intercepted by an act of power without right, and thrown 
into the same whirlpool in which so large a portion of the 
resources of Greece had been already engulphed. 

If the arbitrators approved, and meant to sanction the com- 
missions as charged, why did they not ratify them in the form 

Report, p. 51 



48 Double Commissions. 

in which they were stated ? Why did they remodel the ac- 
counts, which the parties had themselves exhibited, and by 
which they had consented that their claims should be tried ? 
To this the arbitrators say, that " they preferred to state 
" the allowance at the rate of 10 per cent, to each house, upon 
" one ship only, because it was more equal, as between the 
" houses, that each should receive the commissions on its own 
" disbursements, which were unequal in amount." Further 
than this, the abstract love of justice was certainly never car- 
ried. But it is in vain that our respect for the arbitrators 
would force our credulity to receive the explanation. If the 
inequality existed of which they speak — (that it did, we do not 
deny) — was it the province of the arbitrators to correct it ? 
Could they, for a single moment, have deemed it proper to 
exercise this power ? The disbursements of the houses, it is 
true, were unequal in amount ; but what was this to the arbi- 
trators ? What relation had it to the questions which they 
were called upon to decide — questions not between the houses, 
but between them and the Deputies? If, notwithstanding the 
disbursements were unequal, the houses were willing, and 
had agreed to divide equally the commissions, had the arbi- 
trators any right — could they have supposed they had any — 
to disturb and rescind this agreement ? That the houses had 
agreed to this equal divi ion, their accounts, as furnished, are 
conclusive evidence. What right had the arbitrators, at the 
expense of one house, to allow to the other, one or two thou- 
sand dollars more than it had claimed and consented to re- 
ceive ? Did the Messrs. Howland, who were to be benefited, 
require it? Did the Messrs. Bayard, who were to lose, con- 
sent to it ? This is not pretended. No; the arbitrators were 
themselves struck with the inequality of the distribution, and 
by the pure love of justice only were they moved to correct 
it ! There are some who may be willingly blinded by the 
mist of this apology ; but from those who choose to see, it 
cannot long conceal the truth. It vanishes when we seek 
the light The plain truth is this : The arbitrators could 
not sanction the claim of each house to charge a com- 
mission on the disbursements of the other — thev could not 



trouble Commissions. 49 

allow a full commission to each, without manifesting a con- 
temptuous disregard of the evidence they had heard, and 
without shocking the universal sentiment of the mercantile 
community. They felt themselves compelled, therefore, to 
limit the commission of each house to its own expenditures. 
Had this limitation been carried into effect on the accounts as 
they stood, the commissions would have been reduced to one 
half of the amount that was claimed. The arbitrators deem- 
ed it proper to prevent this consequence, and therefore the 
accounts are remodelled, and the rate of commissions doubled. 
That in doing this, the arbitrators exceeded, intentionally, 
their powers, we certainly do not mean to assert : but that 
ihey did not inquire, with much solicitude, into their extent, 
and did, in fact, exceed them, to the very serious prejudice of 
those whose cause we were defending, we most assuredly 
believe.* 

We shall now proceed to state the grounds on which we 
sought to defeat or reduce the commis^ons of the houses as 
claimed in the accounts. 

■In their letter to the arbitrators, Messrs. Emmet and Og- 
den charge Mr. Duer with having said in his letter to Mr. 
Sedgwick, " that his impression was, that the arbitrators had 
• ; omitted the whole of the evidence respecting the comrnis* 
• ; sions. It seems to be generally admitted that the letter of 
the counsel was hastily written, and of this no stronger proof 
could be required than this singular mistatement ; a mistatement, 
which, undesigned as it surely was, can be ascribed to no other 
cause than extreme haste. A single glance at the letter of Mr. 
Duer would have shown the counsel that he had not said what 
they impute to him. The reflection of a single moment would 
have convinced them that he could not have said it ; that he 
could not have said what no person could open the pamphlet 
of the arbitrators and not find to be untrue. Mr Duer did 
say, " That the arbitrators had omitted to state the grounds 
iC on which the counsel for the deputies mainly relied to defeat 

* In reference to this- subject see Mr. Sedgwick's " Refutation," p. 3?. 
. Contoatavlos 1 >~arra<:ve, p. 65. 
G 



50 Size of the Vessels. 

" the claim for commissions, and the evidence in support of 
" them. And that his impression was, that they had omitted 
u the whole of that evidence" that is, the evidence before re- 
ferred to ; the evidence in support of the grounds on which 
we relied to dfent the claim for commissions. This is some- 
what different from an assertion " that the arbitrators had 
omitted all the evidence respecting the commissions l" and it 
is literally true. The counsel for the deputies contended that 
the houses had forfeited all claim to any compensation as 
agents, in the shape of commissions or otherwise, by the vio- 
lation of their instructions ; the breach of their known duties; 
their negligence and ill faith in the execution of their trust. It 
nowhere appears in the report of the arbitrators that these po- 
sitions were taken, and yet it is certain that the larger portion 
of the documentary evidence was produced to support them, and 
that to elucidate and establish them was the main object of the 
closing argument on behalf of the deputies. 

In proof of the misconduct of the houses, we shall state with 
as much brevity as we can, various specifications, and the evi- 
dence applicable^ each. 

It shall not be for want of care on our part if the public are 
not enabled to form a correct and final judgment of the con- 
duct of the houses, and of the propriety and justice of the 
award. 

1. The houses violated their duty in building vessels of a 
much larger size than they knew were contemplated by their 
instructions, and intended by the deputies. 

The fourth article of the instructions directs the houses to 
contract for the building of two frigates, but is silent as to the 
dimensions. The fifth directs that Gen. Lallemand shall as- 
certain that the frigates contracted for shall be of the first class, 
(du premier rang.) It will be said that the Liberator and 
Hope are about the size of, or not much larger than the Bran- 
dywine and other frigates of the first class in our navy, and 
Which, althoughnve choose to style them frigates, are in truth, 
like the Greek frigates, ships of the line ; double-decked sixty- 
fours. How then does it appear that the houses violated their 
instructions ? Thus : — They knew that by "frigates of the first 



Size of the Vessel*. &1 

class" the deputies intended frigates of 15 guns per side, or 50 
gun ships, which the deputies believed to be equal to those of 
our navy, and which alone b> the instructions of their own 
government they were authorised to build. 

First, in the autumn of 1824, the Gieek Deputies wrote to 
Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard h Co. for correct information, such 
as they would be warranted to acton, as to the cost of a frigate 
equal to those of our navy, and of the force which their own -go- 
vernment had authorised, that is — 15 guns per side. This 
letter, it is true, we have not in our possession ; nor was it 
produced before the arbitrators. It is one of those unfortu- 
nately mislaid documents for which we called in vain ; but 
that its import was such as we hue stated, the reply of Messrs. 
Le Roy, Bayard h Co. renders certain. That reply is dated 
the 7th December, 1824 ; it is of such interest and touches on 
so many of the material points of the controversy, that we 
publish it entire in our appendix. The letter commences 
thus — " We have received the letter which you have done us 
" the honor of addressing to our house, with a view of obtain- 
■• ing information as to the cost of a frigate equal to those of 
" our government, of a vessel carrying a single gun, and of 
" different military stores, (munitions de guerre.) In reply, 
11 we have the honor to enclose a detailed estimate which fully 
" meets (satisfait) your several inquiries, and to this we 
" take the liberty of referring you." The estimate is of a 
frigate of 50 guns and 1500 tons, which is therefore in terms 
asserted to be equal to those of our navy. Secondly, upon 
this estimate the deputies founded their resolution to execute 
in part the instructions of their government by ordering the 
construction of two frigates in this country ; that is, they or- 
dered the building of two frigates, in the full belief that their 
cost would corre pond substantially with the estimate that had 
been furnished. The letter of the deputies to Messrs. Le Roy, 
Bayard, & Co. dated the 8th of March, 1825, opens thus: — 
" Upon the information which you have given to us in v^ur 
" letter of the 7th December, we have taken the resolution to 
" entrust to your care the purchase or building o two fri- 
" gates for our government, requesting you to govern your- 



&% Size of the Vessels, 

" selves entirely by the enclosed instructions. 55 * Thus the 
information given is stated as the cause of the resolution 
adopted. What was that information ? Information calcu- 
lated and intended to govern the belief of the Deputies as to 
the probable cost of the frigates they were authorised to pur- 
chase. Had the Deputies said, "We give you an order for 
" the building of two frigates on the faith of the estimate 
" you have sent, and believing that the cost will not differ 
" materially from your statement," their meaning would not 
have been expressed in terms less equivocal to an ho- 
nest mind than those which they actually employ. Yet in 
the face of such evidence Mr. William Bayard says, (Exp. p. 
41.) " the estimate of the 50 gun ship has been most unfairly 
" referred to as that on which the Greek Deputies calculated 
" the expense of their frigates." Lastly, the houses knew 
that the Deputies were not themselves authorised, and therefore 
could not authorise others to build frigates of a greater force 
than 15 guns on a side, that is, 50 gun ships. The Liberator 
and Hope carry 16 guns on a side, and are European ships of 
the line. 

If the intentions of the Deputies were at all ambiguous, it 
was the duty of the houses to have construed them by refer- 
ring to the authority under which they acted, and to enable 
them to do this, and thus govern their own conduct, the de- 
puties transmitted to them an attested copy of their instruc- 
tion!- from their government. The 1st and 2d articles of their 
instructions state, that the Deputies " should have full power 
" to purchase 2 frigates, always however, consulting the in- 
" tcrests of their country in regard to their price, and that each 
" frigate should carry 15 guns on each side." That the De- 
puties knew the relation in which they stood towards their own 
government, and from an anxious sense of their responsibility 
were desirous that their agents should understand it also, will 
sufficiently appear from the following extract. The letter 

* " D^apres les renseignemenls que vous nous avez domic dans votre lettre 
du 7 Doc nous avons pris la resolution de confier a vos soins V ordre d'achat 
on construction de deux fregates," &,c. &c. 



Size of the Vessels. 53 

from which it is taken is addressed to both houses, and is 
dated 23d June, 1S25. " In all our correspondence, gentle- 
" men, we have not ceased to recommend to you as points of 
" the utmost importance in the conduct of the enterprise en- 
11 trusted to you, the pood quality of the timber, and of the 
" materials in general, and economy. Our position in this 
• c affair, as it respects our government, is so delicate, that we 
" believe it proper to enforce again these recommendations. 
" We are but the echo of the positive instructions which our 
" government has given us."* 

The estimate of the 7th December, Mr. William Bayard 
assures us was applicable solely to a vessel of 1500 tons car- 
penter's measurement, and has therefore been most unfairly 
used as an evidenre of the extravagant cost of the frigates 
actually built — when properly considered, it justifies a conclu- 
sion directly opposite. The Liberator and the Hope average, 
as Mr. Bayard says, about 2100 tons carpenter's measurement; 
and had an estimate been made applicable to them upon the 
same principles as that transmitted to the deputies, it would have 
carried the cost of each to $368,500, exclusive of the extra shot, 
&c. without taking into consideration the advance of wages and 
materials. Make the proper allowances for these additional 
charges and add the ship builder's compensation, and the 
commission of the houses, which Mr. Bayard has omitted, and 
we arrive at $'550,000 and upwards, as the fair cost of each 
frigate, so that the actual cost, instead of being a subject of 
complaint as exceeding, has fallen greatly short of the estimate 
furnished. This is very plausible and very bold ; that the 
calculations of Mr. Bayard are deceptive and untrue will here- 

* " Dans toute notre correspondence, Messrs. nous n' avons cesse de vous 
recommender les points Ies plus importants qui ont rapport a Padministration 
de Pentreprise dout vous etes charge, la bonne qualite du bois, de tous les 
materiaux en general, et Peconomie. Notre position vis-a-vis de notre 
gouvt. (en ce qui concerne cette affaire) est si delicate que nous croyons 
& propos de revenir a la charge de nos recommendations. Nous ne sommes 
que P echo des instructions positives que nous avons de notre gouvt." — They 
add in a spirit of blind confidence — " II nous est agreable de penser que nou* 
n 1 auronsque de.< eln<r C > -a vous faire v — des eloc<^ ' 



54 . Size of the Vessels, 

after appear to the conviction even of those who are most willing 
to believe them. We content ourselves at present with drawing 
the attention of our readers to the very singular dilemma in 
which this defence of Mr. Bayard involves the houses. The 
estimate contained in the letter of the 7th December, either 
referred to a frigate " equal to those of our navy," as the let- 
ter itself asserts, or it did not. If it did, then the argu- 
ment founded on the estimate that the actual cost of the frigates 
is exorbitant, and that the funds of Greece must have been 
wasted and misapplied, was fair and just, and remains unan- 
swered ; if it did not, if it was "solely applicable to a 
vessel of 1500 tons carpenter's measurement," how are 
the houses to be vindicated against the charge of having built 
vessels more than one third larger in size than that to which 
the estimate, and, consequently, their instructions referred? 
On the faith of an estimate obtained for the sole purpose of 
enabling them to decide whether to build or not, the Deputies 
ordered the building of two frigates, believing that the aggre- 
gate cost would not exceed $500,000, and the houses having 
received the order, proceed to build two vessels of which they 
knew, according to Mr. Bayard, that the cost must exceed a 
million ! — And this without giving to their employers the 
slightest hint or intimation that could enable them to decide 
how far it was consistent with their duty, and with the interests 
of their country, to authorize so unforeseen and enormous an 
expenditure! To sum up briefly, the whole caseisthis. The 
Deputies were authorized to build vessels of 15 guns on each 
side ; and they require from the Messrs. Bayard an estimate 
of the probable cost of a vessel of that force. They received 
an estimate in fact applicable to a frigate of as large a size as 
the United States had then built, but entitled as for a ship of 
50 guns. It is satisfactory — the solicited order to build is 
sent — the agents proceed to build at more than double the cost 
of the estimate furnished, and when an explanation is required 
the houses reply — ' You have no reason whatever to com- 
i plain of this increased expense. The estimate we sent had 



Size of the VesseL. oi> 

6 no application to the ships we have built. It was entirely 
' useless for the purposes for which you required it, and was 

* disregarded by us the moment we received your instructions. 
c It answered no other purpose than that of deciding you to 
1 build, of gaining your confidence, and giving us the posses- 
4 sion of the funds you have remitted. Those $750,000 are 
" now expended. All that we ask is that you should pay us 

* $280,000 more, and we will deliver you your frigates ; anol 
c at a small additional expense of $170,000* you may then 

* fit them for sea. They will stand yon about $600,000 
' each, which is not three times as much as our estimate led 
1 you to expect. Our friendship for Greece renders us very 

* desirous that you should be silent, and pay us quietly what 
*' we ask. There are other reasons why you should be silent, 
c that we have hitherto suppressed, but must now disclose. 
£ You are in our power. We told you, it is true, that there 
£ was no law to prevent the building of your frigates, and 
: that there would be no difficulty in despatching them to 
: sea ; but this was before the actual building had commenced, 
; and when we had only received the first confirmed credit of 
' 50,000/. sterling. Our object then was to prevent you from 
: countermanding your orders. The transaction has now ar- 
c rived at a different stage — our object now is to compel you 
v to settle our accounts. We now tell you, that the whole 
1 enterprise is illegal — that your ships and all your property 
c in our hands are liable to be seized and forfeited, and if you 
1 utter publicly a single complaint, they will be seized ; 
: whilst in no event can we be the sufferers, as our claims will 
1 be secured to us. In conclusion, we repeat our assurances 
'- of our entire devotion to the interests of Greece. " f The 
" cause of your country," we confess, " is dear to the hearts of 
• c freemen in every quarter of the globe ;" and we are acting. 



Oapt. Chauncey estimated the expense of fitting- the Hope for sea af 
536,000. 

r Exposition, p. 36, paragraph beginning " In conclusion, &c, 



°o Deception as to the size of the Vessels. 

1 you must be sensible, in the spirit of a munificient " charity 
" worthy of a cause so holy and momentous !" ' 

Mr. Wm. Bayard says, Expos, p. 27) after making the 
statement and giving the calculations to which we have refer- 
red, " All these circumstances, fully explained and proved be- 
" fore the Arbitrators, and well understood by Mr. C, are 
" studiously suppressed in order to give some colour of found- 
"ation to the charge, that the first estimate was furnished to 
" the Deputies for the purposes of premeditated deception." 
Mr. C. nowhere says, or intimates, according to our recol- 
lection, that the estimate was furnished for purposes of decep- 
tion. The deception of which he complained was not in the 
original estimate, but in the subsequent expenditure. The 
estimate is, indeed, not applicable to a frigate such as the 
Deputies were authorized to build, of 15 guns on each side, 
and so far it deceived the Deputies ; but it was a fair, though 
high estimate of the cost of a frigate of the first class in our 
navy. "All these circumstances" Mr. Bayard says, "were 
" fully explained and proved before the arbitrators." What 
circumstances? Does he mean that it was fully explained 
and proved, that the estimate was solely applicable to a ves- 
sel of 1500 tons, carpenter's measurement, and that if applied 
with the additions he has made to the Liberator and the Hope. 
it would have carried the cost of each to more than half a 
million of dollars ? He can mean nothing else, — and to his 
assertion, therefore, we must oppose our direct and unqualified 
contradiction ; no such explanation was made or attempted — 
had it been, its absurdity and untruth would have been instant- 
ly exposed. 

What has Mr. C. suppressed ? He has published, in full, 
the estimate as furnished, and has headed it as an estimate for 
a ship of 50 guns. If it be solely applicable to a vessel of 
1500 tons, carpenter's measurement; that is, to a vessel several 
hundred tons inferior in size to the frigates of the first class 
in our navy, the fact that it is so, will be apparent to all 
who undersand the subject, on an inspection of the items as 
charged. If these are found greatly inferior in quantity or 
value to the corresponding articles as furnished to our frigates, 



Estimates — firtrndywine. 57 

then the assertions of Mr. Bayard may be true — but if on 
such a comparison, the quantity and cost are found to agree, 
then we are sure that this allegation of a difference of tonnage, 
and all the calculations founded on it, are pretended and fal- 
lacious. This comparison we earnestly request our readers 
to make : it will not detain us long. It so happens that the 
two first items in the estimate are of themselves fatal to Mr. 
Bayard's explanation, and demolish all bis calculations. The 
first item is " 20,000 feet of live oak, for the frame ;" and this 
our readers will find on inquiry is the estimated quantity for 
a frigate of the first class. The charge, for this item, is 
$30,000, at $1 50 per foot. The second item is "other 
wooden materials, $30,000," making the cost of all the wood 
$60,000. 

We have now before us an official statement of the actual 
cost of the Brandywine, annexed to a report made by the 
Secretary of the navy to the President, in December, 1825, 
and by the President communicated to Congress. The whole 
charge for " wood" is $59,541 51 ; and it is obvious that, this 
includes all the wooden materials of the ship. There is, in- 
deed, another charge, headed ' k other materials," amounting 
to more than $36,000; but this item, we are informed in a 
note, embraces the ordnance and stores, and all the expendi- 
tures for equipment and outfit then ascertained. There is no 
intimation that the other expenses as charged had not been 
fully ascertained.* We have also before us an estimatef of 
the value of the Liberator, made by the commissioners ap- 
pointed by the navy department. The wood of the Liberator, 
comprehending her frame, is valued by these experienced of- 
ficers at $45,000, making a deduction of $19,800 from the 
sum at which the valuation would have been made, had the 
frame been of live oak. We shall compare but one item 
more — Labour in the estimate furnished to the Deputies is 
valued at $60,000. In that made by the commissioners the 
labour actually performed on the Liberator is valued at $55," 
000! It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that the estimate 

* Message of President, and document annexed — Dec. 1525. p. 15G. 
•f Spp tins pctimq+p. Appendix, No. 5. 

H 



58 Estimate of Liberator'; 

furnished to the Deputies was meant to apply to a frigate of 
the first class. The conclusion, however painful, is irresisti- 
ble, that the bold statement and specious calculations of Mr. 
Bayard were framed to deceive the public. He felt that a 
comparison of the previous estimate and subsequent cost of 
the frigates would justify the worst suspicions entertained by 
the public and expressed by Mr. Contostavlos ; and he has 
resorted to those means of defence which the urgency of his 
case suggested. 

Mr. Bayard says, (Expos, p. 13,) that it does not concern 
him to explain or justify the fact, " that the government of 
" the United States, in the plenitude of its generosity, has 
" thought fit to receive one of the Greek frigates at about 
" one half its cost." He means, that the government have 
knowingly purchased the frigate at a price far below its value 
— far below what it would have cost had they built it ; and, 
therefore, that no inference unfavourable to the houses ought 
to be drawn from a comparison of the sum which Greece has 
paid, with that which she has received. 

The censure on the government and its officers is easily 
understood, and its propriety, as proceeding from Mr. Bay- 
ard, we suppose, will be universally felt. It is most unfounded, 
and must be repelled. It is not true that the Commissioners 
meant to speculate on the necessities of Greece — that they 
sought in her distress, a dishonourable gain to themselves or 
the government. A thought so unworthy and base never for 
an instant polluted their intentions. They acted in the spirit 
of their trust, which they well understood, and meant that 
their estimate should not merely be fair, but liberal. We feel 
authorised to assert, that their estimate was made, not on the 
principle of the actual value of the ship, but of the actual 
cost of the materials and labour, to which their valuation ex- 
tended. They meant to give at least as much as, in their 
judgment, it would have cost the government to build a fri- 
gate of the same materials and dimensions.* 



■ Further observations on this subject will be found under the head of 
Disbursements. 



No Estimate procured. 



a<J 



The reader will search in vain in the Report of the arbitra- 
tors, for any trace of the letter of the 7th December, and its en- 
closed estimate. Nowhere will he find even an allusion to the 
fact that such an estimate was furnished, or had any influence 
on the determination of the Deputies to build. The two prin- 
cipal charges against the houses, those on which we relied 
with most confidence to defeat their unjust pretensions, were, 
that they had deceived the Deputies in relation to the safety 
(legality) and expense of the operation entrusted to their care. 
The principal documents in support of these charges, were 
the letter of the 15th April, already so often referred to, and 
the letter and estimate of the 7th December. The arbitrators 
have • mitted both ; and yet they are indignant that the fidel- 
ity of their report is called in question. 

2. The houses were guilty of very gross negligence in un- 
dertaking to build the frigates by days' work, without hav- 
ing procured any estimate of the probable cost of a very 
unusual operation, or having, in fact, procured or made 
any calculations on the subject : and they obtained the as- 
sent of the Deputies to this unexpected plan, by the false 
assertion that they had made a scrupulous examination of 
all the details, and had ascertained that a very great sav- 
ing would result. 

We proceed first to the evidence. The resolution to 
build by days' work, was adopted early in May, and 
communicated to General Lallemand in a letter, dated 
the 10th of that month. This letter the reader will find in 
page 12 of the Arbitrators' Report. It asserts, that the 
houses were then in possession of the necessary informa- 
tion on the subject of the building of the frigates in this and 
other seaports in the United States, and that they had receiv- 
ed estimates and proposals for the building ; and they evi- 
dently found their opinion of the expediency of building by 
days' work, on the information so possessed, and the estimates, 
&c. received by them. They then submit their opinion to Ge- 
neral Lallemand, and request his advice and instructions. 
The approbation of the General being obtained, the houses, 
on the 14th May, wrote thus to the Deputies : — " We confirm 
" the letter which we had the honour to address to you on the 



bti Scrupulous Examination ; 

" 15th of April ;" and proceed now to inform you, that after 
" much reflection, and having calculated every thing with the 
" utmost care, we have resolved, with the approbation of Ge- 
" neral Lallemand, to buiid the two frigates ourselves, under 
" the inspection of a distinguished and experienced officer of 
" the United States navy. After a scrupulous examination of 
" all the details, we are convinced that a great saving will 
" result, and that the building will be completed in a shorter 
" time. Had we built the vessels by contract, we should have 
" been obliged to pay a higher price, as our ship-carpenters 
" are accustomed to claim large profits, and we should have 
" been exposed to the risk of having the work less faithfully 
" performed."* We now request the attention of our readers 
to the several assertions made or implied in the letters above 
referred to. First — That the houses were in possession of 
full information as to the cost of building frigates, as well in 
other seaports as in this city. That it was the duty of the 
houses to have obtained this information, will be doubted by 
none : that they felt it to be so, is evident from the solici- 
tude with which they assert its performance. During the ar- 
bitration, we were led to doubt- whether any inquiries what- 
ever, as to the probable cost of building the frigates in other 
ports of the Union, had been made : and we finally rested in 
the conviction, that the plan adopted by the houses, of build- 
ing the vessels themselves by days' work, had not been adopt- 
ed from any belief of its superior advantages to Greece, but 
was the original plan on which the houses had determined, 
with a view to their own security, and to the increased profits 

* " Nous vous confirmons la leitre que nous avons en l'honneur de vous 
addresser le 15 Avril et venons vous faire part qu' apres beaucoup de re- 
flexions et avoir tout calcule avec le plus grand soin nous avons avec 
l'approbaiion du General Lallemand determine de faire construire nous 
memes ces deux (rebates sous Pinspeciion d' un officier de la marine des 
Etats Unis, distingue et experimentc. D'apres un examen scrupuleux 
de tous les details, nous sommes convaineus qu'il en resultera une grand 
economie et plus de promptitude pour la construction ; en contract ant 
pour ces batimens nous aurioas du payer un prix plus eleve, les construc- 
teurs ayant la pretention de faire de grands benefices, et etre exposes k un 
travail execute avec moins de fidelife " 



No Examination. 6t 

to be derived from their commissions. We shall be great!\ 
deceived if a similar conviction is not produced on the mind 
of the public. The arbitrators represent General Lallemand 
as having said, on his cross-examination, that " he made in- 
" quiries at Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, in regard 
" to the expense of building ships, and found the comparison 
" in favour of New- York."* Such is not our recollection of 
General Lallemand's testimony ; and in our own recollection 
we must be permitted to confide, as it is confessed his state- 
ment was made in answer to questions that we addressed. We 
put no questions that could have elicited such an answer. It 
did not occur to us to inquire whether he, General Lallemand, 
a stranger, a foreigner — writing and speaking our language 
imperfectly — having little knowledge of the business of ship- 
building, especially in its details, and unacquainted with the 
persons to whom such inquiries could with propriety be ad- 
dressed, — had himself obtained the information in question. 
We asked as to the information which the houses, in their let- 
ter to him of the 10th, had stated that they then -possessed; 
and his answer was. that they assured him that they had writ- 
ten to the several cities he mentioned, and that the answers 
which they had received, had satisfied them that New-York 
was entitled to the preference. The letters of General Lal- 
lemand, now before us, seem to us to confirm our statement 
of his testimony. In his letter to the Deputies, of the loth 
April, 1825, General Lallemand says — u On a ecrit pour etre 
11 informe de ce qui pourrait etre fait dans ies autres chan- 
i; tiers des Etats Unis." " Letters have been written to pro- 
cure information as to what can be done in other ship-yards 
in the United States." We profess no extraordinary skill in 
the native language of General Lallemand, but we think 
the phrase " on a ecrit" would hardly have been used iu re- 
ference to letters written by himself. On the 24th April, the 
General writes again to the Deputies, and commences his let- 
ter as follows : — " The information obtained in the different 
" ports in the United States, having disclosed no mean? of 

Import, p. II. 



62 Proof refused. 

li obtaining such ships of war as it would have been uecea- 
" sary to send to Greece, and no ship-builder in any port be- 
" ing able to undertake to build them as soon as in this city, , 
" the houses have been occupied in fixing the conditions of a 
" contract, which will probably be concluded to-morrow, for 
" two frigates of the first class."* The vigour and celerity 
with which the houses had prosecuted their inquiries, so as to 
be enabled to ascertain, in the space of eight days, that no 
person was to be found in any of the ports of the United 
States, who would undertake the building of the frigates on 
the terms they wished, will probably excite the astonishment 
of the public, as it excited our own. To remove our scepti- 
cism, we called for proof of the facts that such inquiries had 
been made, and such information obtained. The good faith 
of General Lallemand we did not doubt, but we thought it at 
least possible that he had been deceived. Our suspicions, if 
unfounded, were easy to be repelled. All that was necessary 
was to produce the letters which the houses, or either of them, 
had addressed to their friends in the different ports of the 
United States, together with the answers which they had re- 
ceived. We, therefore, called for this correspondence. Our 
demands, verbally made, for these and other papers, being ne- 
glected or forgotten, we made a formal requisitionf in writing., 

* " Les informations prises dans les divers ports des Etats Unis n'ayant offert 
aucun moyen de se procurer de suite les batimens de guerre qu'il eut eli> 
necessaire d'envoyer en Grece, et aucun constructed ne pouvant dans 
aucun port enterprendre de les construire ausse vite qu'a New-York, on 
s^est occupe d'etablir les conditions du contrat qui sera probablernent 
passe demain pour deux fregates du premier rang." 

f We add a copy of the requisition referred to. We request that the 
following letters, kc. may be uroduced : 

1. The letter of the Deputies to Messrs. Le Roy & Bayard, written 
some time in the month of October or November, 1824, and to which their 
letter of the 7th of December is an answer, (not produced, said to be mis- 
laid.) 

2. The letter of the two houses to Mr. Ricardo requesting a credit to 
be opened, (not produced, its existence denied. See Mr. C's. narrative, 

13.) 
?>. The letter of the two houses to the Messrs. Ricardo enclosing a 



Proof refused. 63 

of which we delivered a copy to the opposite counsel, and 
which we read in the presence of the arbitrators ; and to this 
we frequently called the attention of the opposite party and 
their counsel. Some of the papers we required, after a long 
hesitation (we refer to the correspondence with the Messrs. 
Ricardo) were produced ; but on this subject, our call was 
unanswered. No proof whatever was given, not a single let- 
ter was produced, to show that any inquiry was made, any 
information obtained, in a single port of the United States, 
except this city, as to the time and expense that would be re- 
quired to build the frigates, or either of them.* Is the infer- 
ence unfair or uncharitable, that the facts did not exist, of 
which the proof was thus withheld ? Again. The houses 
assert that they had calculated, with the utmost care, all the 
expenses they were likely to incur, and had examined the 
subject with the most scrupulous attention in all its details. 
We do not know that stronger expressions could have been 
used to mark the vigilance and care with which they watched 
over the interests of their employers. How was it possible 
for the Deputies to believe that men who proceeded with so 
much caution, could be deceived or mistaken in the course it 
was expedient to pursue ? 



statement of their expenditures, referred to in their letter of the 26th of 
February, 1826, (not produced.) 

4. All the contracts, (produced.) 

5. All Mr. Ricardo-s letters to the two houses, (a correspondence was 
produced said to be complete but not including the letters above mentioned.) 

6. The letters of the Deputies of the 15th October, 1825, of which the 
receipt is acknowledged in General Lallemand's letter of 19th December, 
(not produced.) 

7. Copies of all the statements and estimates delivered to General Lal- 
lemand, and particularly the estimates made in May, 1825, (not pro- 
duced.) 

8. Such information as was received from other ports as to the expense 
of constructing vessels, &c. (not produced.) 

* General Lallemand has renewed before the public the protest he made 
before the Arbitrators against the production or publication of his letters. 
That protest we felt, and still feel, ourselves compelled to disregard. The 
letters of General Lallemand relative to his agencv were no more confi- 



4G Calculation in detail. 

They had calculated every thing with the utmost care, ex- 
amined the subject in all its details, and yet it is a melancholy 
and disgraceful truth, that they had calculated, they had 
examined nothing ; and the resolution to reject the proposal 
of Eckford and build the vessels themselves, was not the de- 
liberate judgment of agents anxious to secure the interests of 
their employers, but the fixed determination of men looking 
solely to their own. What would be its effects on the inter- 
ests of Greece they inquired not ; that their own would not 
suffer they were well persuaded. 

On his cross examination, Demon the ship carpenter, ad- 
mitted that he had neither made, nor been required to make, 
any estimate of the probable expense of building by days, 
work. General Lallemand stated that a general expectation 
was entertained that the vessels would be built more cheaply 
than by contract, but that no estimate in detail was made or 
procured. Still the letter was so explicit in asserting that 

dential than those of the houses themselves. They were an essential part 
of a transaction which without them could never be fully understood. 
The General was permitted to state orally (Rep. p. 19) some of the con- 
tents of his letters — as that he had informed the Deputies from time to 
time of the amount expended, of the bills to be drawn, &c. We must be 
pardoned for thinking that the letters themselves were the best evidence 
of the facts communicated. The General says, we doubt not truly, that 
his letter of the 1st November was the only one shown to the houses, and 
we are therefore at a loss in what manner to interpret the following passage 

in a letter from the Messrs. Bayard to the Messrs. Ricardo, dated the 

December, 1 825. The Messrs. Ricardo had complained that the Depu- 
ties had been kept in utter ignorance -of the proceedings of their agents, 
the probable cost, &c. In answer to this the Messrs. Bayard say — " We 
are surprised at the remark made in your above letter that you was not in- 
formed of what was doing here. We cannot conceive how this happens, 
as we have seen letters, if they reached Messrs, Orlando and Luriottis, 
which entered into full details ; and we must further observe that notwith- 
standing the very serious accident which befel their agent here, that we 
have not done a single thing which this gentleman has not entered into 
scrupulous examination of; indeed, we at times conceived almost mispla- 
ced. 1 ' We should certainly have believed that the letters of General 
Lallemand were here referred to, but for two circumstances — that the Ge- 
neral denies that they were seen, and that they contain no such details as 
!|,p Messrs Bavjml ^peok of. 



Building by days* work. G5 

ail the necessary calculations had been gone into in all the 
details, that we urged, and continued to urge their produc- 
tion, until it was at last admitted, that no calculation or state- 
ment of expenses was in existence ; and that it was out of 
the power of the houses to produce any evidence whatever, of 
the very scrupulous and detailed examinations which they 
had asserted to have taken place, and which on a question so 
deeply concerning the proper execution of their trust, it was 
their duty to have made. 

Lastly, the houses declare that the result of their examina- 
tions and reflections, was a conviction that the plan of build- 
ing by days' work was preferable as the hast expensive; that 
they were satisfied that a great saving would he effected, 
and that the proposals of Mr. Eckford (no other had been 
made to them) were rejected on account of the large and un- 
reasonable profits which he expected. All this Mr. Bayard now 
assures us is untrue. The houses did not reject the proposals 
of Mr. Eckford as extravagant, but " wished that he should 
build the vessels." They were overruled by General Lalle- 
mand ; but the chief motive even of his opposition was the 
time required. As to the diminution of the expense, the 
great saving which they promised the deputies, they had no 
such expectations ; but on the contrary, believed that the 
cost would be in fact, though not material!}', increased.* The 
last statement of Mr. Bayard, as we are compelled to ch ose, 
we confess, commands our belief, except that we doujjt whether 
any opinion was formed as to the probable limits of the in- 
creased expense. How far the houses had any wish that Mr. 
Eckford should build the vessels will soon appear. We did 
not include this position in our qualified assent to Mr. Bayard. 

One of the least excusable omissions in the report of the 

* "Notwithstanding the prices demanded by Mr. Eckford, it was the 
wish of both the houses that he should build the vessels. General Lal- 
lemand was opposed to it, principally on account of the time required ; 
the cost of the vessels, in the state of Greece, being considered by bim 
of secondary importance. We were all of opinion that by days' la- 
bour the work might be accelerated without any material increase of 
cost." Exp- p. n. 

T 



66 Mr. Eckford' s proposal. 

arbitrators is. that of the letter from Mr. Eckford to General 
Lallemand, to which Mr. Contostavlos in his Narrative, 
p. 56. has so forcibly referred, and which was produced by 
General Lallemand and read in evidence.* It contained, as Mr. 
Contostavlos has stated, a direct offer on the part of Mr. Eck- 
ford, to build the frigates three months sooner, and for a less 
sum, than any other person in the United States, competent to 
give security for the performance of his engagement, would 
contract for. That this offer was highly advantageous, that 
Mr. Eckford, from the quantity of materials he had already 
on hand, and the number of workmen in his employ, could 
build the ships with a cheapness and despatch that none other 
could hope to rival, was not denied. It was admitted that the 
offer, if made at an earlier period, ought to have been agreed 
to ; but its rejection was placed on the ground that the houses 
had already made their engagements with their respective 
ship-carpenters. It was for this reason, it may possibly be 
thought, that the arbitrators abstained from all noticeofit. It is, 
however, to be regretted, that it did not occur to them to 
state the fact, that the offer of Mr. Eckford had been made, 
in order to enable the public to judge of the sincerity and 
probability of the excuse assigned for its rejection. The 
offer of Mr. Eckford, according to our recollection, was 
dated on the 15th or lth of May. It was received before 
any monies had been advanced, or any materials purchased : 
and the only impediment to its acceptance was a contract, in 
the execution of which no steps had yet been taken. This 
contract our readers will recollect was not for the building 
of the ships; they were to be built by the houses themselves; 
but merely for the personal services and the use of the yards 
of the respective ship-carpenters : and, therefore, the injury 
resulting to them from annulling the agreement in this stage 
of the operation, could not certainly have been a matter of 
difficult or expensive compensation. Can it be believed 
that the houses, especially when we consider the relations 

* This letter appears to be lost, but when we know not; but the substance 
of i' could not have been forgotten, and the accuracy of our recollection 
bas just been confirmed to one of ns by Mr. Eckford himself. 



Deception as to the time and cost, 07 

subsisting between them, and mechanics looking up to them 
for constant patronage and employment, would have met any 
serious obstacles in procuring, on modera'e terms, a release 
from their engagements? Had the Messrs. Bayard and 
Howland been building, not as agents, but on their own 
account, how long do our readers imagine that their engage- 
ments to their carpenters would have delayed the acceptance 
of Mr. Eckford's offer, if by such an acceptance they had 
known that their own interests were to be materially promo- 
ted? Our own belief, which we shall not conceal, as to the 
motives that produced the rejection of Mr. Eckford's propo- 
sal, is, that they would have led to the same result, had it 
been made at an earlier period. It was their fixed determination 
to avoid that risk, which has since be^n made the pretext of 
the exorbitant commissions they have received. Had they 
contracted with Mr. Eckford, or with any one else, they would 
have been personally responsible for the whole amount stipu- 
lated to be paid. Building, as they did, by days' work, and 
postponing as they did, the large contracts, until the months of 
October and November, that is, until they had received more 
than £i 00,000 sterling, they incurred no responsibilities 
which the funds and property in their hands were not more 
than sufficient to meet. This was a chief motive: that there 
were others of equal urgency, our readers, when they shall 
have perused our remarks on the " Disbursements," may not 
improbably be led to suspect. 

3. The houses deceived the Deputies as to the time within 
which the frigates would be built and prepared for sea, and 
they withheld from them all information, although it was fre- 
quently required, of their probable cost, until (in the lan- 
guage of Mr. Contostavlos) " the period arrived when the 
11 interference of the Deputies could no longer avail; until 
" the building of the vessels had proceeded so far, and sums 
" so large had been transmitted, that there remained no alter- 
" native, except the entire sacrifice of what had been ad- 
" vanced, or the completion at whatever cost of what remain- 
" ed to be done." 

This specification embraces the chief topics of complaint 
and discussion in the Narrative of Mr. Contostavlos. and he 



£§ Deception as to the time, 

has exhibited nearly all the evidence on which we relied on the 
hearing; no portion of which, however, according to our 
recollection, have the arbitrators stated or referred to in their 
report. We shall not abuse the patience of the public by a 
repetition of what has been said, but shall content ourselves 
with a brief statement of the leading facts, and a brief refu- 
tation of the defence that has been attempted. 

In their letter of the 15th of April, the houses state that 
the whole eight frigates which the Deputies were authorized 
to build, could be got ready for sea in six months ; and 
General Lallemand, in his letter of the 16th of the same 
month, stated that the vessels could not be got ready for sea 
until the month of November. He, of course, spoke from 
the representations that were made to him. What conclu- 
sions were drawn by the Deputies from these assurances, 
what confidence they reposed in them, and what importance 
they attached to them, will appear from the few extracts from 
their letters which we shall give. In their letter of 14th of 
May, addressed to both houses, they say — " Agreeably to 
" the instructions that have been given you, we flatter our- 
" selves, that before the receptibn of this letter you will have 
" decided on the building of the two frigates in question 
11 without delay, so that we ma} r hope to hear of their depar- 
i: turefor Greece about the month of November." In their 
letter of the 31st of May they repeat the same hope. " We 
" continue to flatter ourselves that the frigates will be able to 
" leave the United States in November, or at the latest, in 
" December." And their letter of the 23d of June contains 
this explicit declaration. " As to the time that will be re- 
" quisite for the building of the two frigates, we have already 
" informed you, that, according to the opinion of General 
" Lallemand, we expect to see them finished in the month of 
" November, or December at the latest ; and it appears to us. 
" that in no event (dans aucun cas) will you exceed this 
" period." And in their subsequent letters for two or three 
months, they express the snme expectations, and urge in 
strong terms the necessity of this despatch. 

The houses, when they commenced the building of the 



As to the cost. 69 

\essels, bad no expectation or belief that they would be able 
to leave the United States until many months after the period 
which they had previously stated, and on which the Deputies 
had fixed their hopes : and yet they permit the Deputies to 
remain under the delusion which their own assurances had 
produced. 

Captain Chauncey stated, that when he made his contract, 
it was not expected that the frigates would be ready for sea 
until the first of March : and Demon the ship-carpenter said," 
that he informed Mr. Howland that the Liberator would not 
probably be launched until the spring of 1826, though possi- 
bly, by great exertions, it might be effected in the month of 
January.* It can h«rdly be necessary to inform our readers, 
that after a frigate is launched, two or three months are still 
necessary to fit her for sea. 

Next, as to the good faith of the houses in disclosing the 
probable cost. We have already shown that the building of 
the frigates was ordered on the faith of the estimate of the 
7th December : and it is certain, from the subsequent corres- 

:; The Arbitrators (p. 23 of Report) state this testimony as follows : 
" He told Mr. [lowland that the Liberator might possibly be launched 
in January, but perhaps not until the spring following'." This is very 
equivocal and obscure. The reader may possibly understand what 
is meant, and perhaps not — he may infer that in the opinion of the wit- 
ness, the launching in the spring was the most improbable contingency 
of the two — that the month of January was his first expectation. The 
meaning of the witness was directly the reverse, and so he at first ex- 
pressed himself. He stated in plain direct terms that be did not believe 
that the vessel could be launched until the spring following, and so told 
Mr. Howland. That on Mr. Howland^ pressing the necessity of more 
expedition, he answered, that possibly, by great exertions, the launch- 
ing might be effected in January ; and this the witness stated in proof 
of the extraordinary activity and diligence that had been used to en- 
able them to launch the ship so many months sooner than was at first 
expected. The inference, however, that we should be entitled to draw 
from this statement was soon perceived, and the witness began to sus- 
pect that an error had been committed. He then, as is not unusual, 
doubted, hesitated, qualified, and ended at last in the very lucid answer 
which the arbitrators have published, and which he could not be 
brought to render more intelligible. — And this equivocal answer the 

bitraton have eriven as all his testimonv on the subject ! 



70 Deception as to the cost. 

pondence, that the Deputies continued to believe, until a very 
late period, that the actual would not exceed the estimat- 
ed cost — making, of course, the necessary additions of the 
extra sails, spars, armament, &c which their instructions re- 
quired, and including the expenses of equipment and outfit, 
stores, wages, &c, and the commissions of their agents. 
They were at last undeceived by the appalling letter, as Mr. 
Contostavlos* has truly termed it, of the 31st of October: and 
then the operation was instantly suspended, the payment of 
the further bills of the houses refused, and a resolution taken 
that one of the Deputies, or some other competent person, 
should proceed to this country, to ascertain the causes of so 
unforeseen an expenditure. The letter of the Deputies, ad- 
dressed to the houses, of the 15th October, is as follows: — 
" As you have written to the Messrs. Ricardo, requesting 
" them to open you a credit to meet the expenses of building 
;< the frigates ;f in the uncertainty in which we remain as to 
" the sum that will still be necessary, we send you two letters 
" of credit, one of £13,000, the other of £12,000 sterling, 
" in the whole £25,000 sterling ; and we hope that this sum 
" will be sufficient to provide for all that remains to be done" 
The credits thus transmitted, in addition to the amount 
before received by the houses, make a sum total of£J 30,000: 
this, at the rate of exchange as credited by the houses, would 
produce about $600,000. The original estimate was $247,000 
for a single frigate : so that, in the opinion of the Deputies, 

* See Narrative p. 17, where this letter is published in full. 

f This was one of the letters of which we required the production. 
The allegation that it was lost would- not here answer, as what we 
required was the copy, which the houses, according to the invariable 
usage of merchants, must have kept. It was therefore boldly declared 
that no such letter had been written. Our object in requiring the 
production was to prove that the houses had written to the Messrs Ri- 
cardo to obtain their unlimited guaranty of all the bills they might 
choose to draw, on account of the frigates. This was the nature of 
the credit they desired to be opened. It is obvious from the terms in 
which the Deputies express themselves, that this was the fact. Had 
the letter to the Ricardos specified the amount of the credit desired, 
the Deputies would not have remained in the uncertainty of which they 
speak. 



Probable cost disclosed. 7 1 

an additional sum of #53,000 for each frigate, was sufficient 
to cover all the extra materials they had ordered, the expen- 
ses of outfit, and the commissions of ihe houses. A stronger 
proof of the confidence they continued to repose in that esti- 
mate, it would be impossible to furnish. It may be inciden- 
tally remarked, that it U a proof equally strong, that the De- 
puties did not believe that they would be exposed to a charge 
for commissions beyond the rate of mercantile usage. How 
the Deputies were at last undeceived, is well known to those 
who have read the Narrative of Mr. Contostavlos. The ne- 
cessity of mystery and silence having ceased, the purposes of 
the deception being accomplished — (we speak it plainly, for 
we feel it to be true, and that the proof of its truth is irresisti- 
ble) — Extortion issues forth, bold, fearless, undisguised, from 
the retreats of Falsehood, in which he had sought conceal- 
ment. In their letter of the 31st October, the houses require 
the Deputies to provide for the cost of each frigate, at the 
rate of $550,000, calculated at par, and demand a deposit, 
or the guaranty of their own banker, for that portion of this 
enormous sum which they had not then received. Add the 
premium of exchange, and the cost of the two frigates is car- 
ried to one million two hundred thousand dollars ! — double 
the amount which the Deputies, one fortnight only before this 
letter was written, had expressed their belief would be requir- 
ed. And yet it is now gravely insisted, that the Deputies 
never relied on the estimate for which they had written ; that 
they were under no mistake or delusion as to the probable 
cost of the frigates ; and that all necessary information was 
ki fully and seasonably imparted."* To the force of the re- 
marks which Mr. Contostavlos has made on this subject, we 
feel it impossible to add, and to his Narrative we refer pin- 
readers, f 

'" Bayard's Expos, p, 9. 

f Narrative p. 19. As a further proof, if further can be required, of 
the belief of the Deputies as to the cost of the frigates, and of the 
embarrassment to which they were subjected in consequence of its un- 
expected increase, we request the attention of our readers to theev- 



72 Defence by the Arbitrators. 

It is not our fault if these charges of deception and inten- 
tional concealment shall appear to derive a new force from 
the defence that is attempted. 

We begin with the arbitrators, who seek to vindicate the 
houses against accusations which they never mention to have 
been preferred ; and the evidence in support of which, they have 
entirely omitted. According to the arbitrators, the houses 
and General Lallemand were themselves, when the building 



tracts that follow, from a letter of the Messrs. Ricardo to Le Roy, 
Bayard & Co. dated the 30th Nov. 1825 ; the letter was written imme- 
diately after the receipt of the last bills that were paid : — " We have 
"received your letters of the 22d and 31st October, and find to our as- 
" tonishment that you have drawn for £12,000 over and above the 
'• credit we have given you. Were it not for the great respectability 
" of your house, we should have hesitated accepting the bills, for we 
" cannot possibly conceive how these frigates can require so extraor- 
" dinary a sum as £155,000 (sterling). We have conversed with the 
" Deputies on this subject, and it appears that you could never have 
" rightly understood each other, as they calculated the last credit we 
" sent you would cover all expenses. This call for an additional 
" £25,000, is an unexpected and embarrassing occurrence." 

We add some extracts from a subsequent letter of the 14th Dec. 
What may have been the motives or conduct of the Messrs. Ricardo, 
in their dealings with the Deputies, we know not, nor do we conceive 
these have any thing to do with this controversy. The good sense and 
truth of their reasoning we think it impossible to deny. " We 
" wrote to you on the 30th Nov. of which letter we now beg leave to 
" send a copy. We there expressed our astonishment at the very 
" large sum of money you required, and we observed we expected it 
" would be more than sufficient to complete your Undertaking. We 
M have since had a long conversation with the Deputies on the subject, 
" have read all the correspondence" between you, and find to our re- 
" gret and surprise, that great as the amount is for which you have 
" already drawn, it is insufficient for the object ; and that you request 
" to have funds deposited in the hands of bankers with whom you are 
" in correspondence, to enable you to finish the frigates, which you es- 
" timate will require $550,000 each. We cannot help expressing our 
" unequivocal astonishment at the magnitude of the sum. We cannot 
r understand how it is possible to expend above £220,000 sterling in 
" the construction and fitting out two frigates. It is a most extrava- 
" gant price, and could not have been contemplated when the commis- 
cc sion was entrusted to you. We do not speak loosely, for we have 
,; made many inquiries on the subject. The estimated cost of fitting ouf 



(Jaiculatwns of Cost. 73 

commenced, under a great delusion as to the probable expense 
of the ships.* They " have been disappointed in their early 
sanguine calculations," and the frigates " have no doubt cost 
much more than they anticipated." And as to their neglect 
to make or transmit the usual estimates, they mean to excuse 
them, on the ground that, " as soon as the plan of building 
by days' work was adopted, it was utterly impossible to cal- 
culate, with any degree of precision, the final amount." Mr. 
Bayard takes, as is not unusual with him, a much bolde> 
flight, and disdains to cover himself under the kind excuses 
and apologies of the arbitrators. He denies that there was 
any neglect, concealment, or error. The Deputies, he con- 
tends, were in possession of all the information that was neces- 
sary to regulate their future operations. An approximate 
calculation, such as they desired, was made and sent to them. 
In short, every circumstance was distinctly communicated, 

u vessels of war for the British navy is £1000 sterling- per gun. By 
" the enclosed letter from one of the first and most respectable ship- 
" builders in London, you will see what might have been done here. 
" How is it that in America, where wood, the principal material, is so 
" much cheaper, the cost of building- a frigate should be more than 
M double what it is in England ? It is a matter which passes our com- 
" prehension ; we trust to have it satisfactorily explained. In Decem- 
" ber last you sent to the Greek Deputies, the valuation of the cost of 
" a frigate, which amounted to $247,000. In this was included the 
" greatest part of the equipment, and it was on this estimate, and from 
" the inquiries they made here, that in the March following they en- 
" trusted to you the commission to purchase, or if you could not pur- 
" chase, to build two frigates." — " When you found that the expense 
*• was likely to be so much greater, ought you not, before you com- 
" menced the undertaking, to have informed them of the maximum of 
" the funds which would be required to complete it ? You knew the 
•* stnte of affairs in Greece ; the urgent demands of their government, 
" that the last instalment of the loan was in October, and notwithstand- 
u all this, it is only at the end of November that the Deputies here are 
" made acquainted that the frigates, which upon a reasonable estimate 
" they could never have considered at above £60,000 each, will require 
" together the enormous sum of £233,000. How was it possible for 
" them to foresee this, or how could they guard against so unlooked for 
» a result ?* 

Rpport, p. 63, 4. 

K 



74 Arbitrators and Mr. Bayard opposed. 

from which they could have inferred the enormous expendi- 
ture that has occurred.* Either of these defences, if true, 
may be satisfactory — but to adopt them both, is impossible. 
They are manifestly and utterly inconsistent. The arbitra- 
tors mean to say that the houses did not deceive the Depu- 
ties, for they were themselves deceived. They did not furnish 
an estimate, because none could be made. Mr. Bayard says 
that neither the houses nor the Deputies were deceived, the 
expense was known at the commencement, and an estimate 
was furnished, by which every thing was disclosed. Mr. 
Bayard deserves at least the praise of consistency. The de- 
fence on which he now places himself before the public, is the 
same on which his house relied in their correspondence with 
the Messrs. Ricardo ; and we cannot illustrate more strikingly 
the contradiction subsisting between him and his apologists, 
than by a passage from one of the letters in that correspon- 
dence. " We believe it is true," say the arbitrators, " that the 
" New-York houses and General Lallemand have been dis- 
" appointed in their early sanguine calculations as to the ex- 
" pense of these ships. They have, no doubt, cost much more 
" than Gen. Lallemand and the houses anticipated." p. 63. 
" The cost of the vessels," Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard & Co. 
assure their correspondents, " was known from the very be- 
" ginning ; and the estimates transmitted will exceed, in all 
" probability, their actual cost." (Letter to Messrs, J. §* S. 
Ricardo, 19th January, 1826.-J*) 



* Expos, p. 8. 

f This letter contains the following most astonishing passage, for as- 
tonishing it must appear even after all that has occurred : " In reply- 
" ing to your respects of 30th of November, we cannot but express our 
u surprise and regret that you should not have been informed regarding 
'' the cost of the vessels building. Immediately after the arrival of Gene- 
; ral Lallemand, we called on our principal builder, then constructing 
'' two frigates of the first class. The price he asked we imparted to the 
" committee (the Deputies), and in stating the sum at $550,000 for each 
" vessel, we expressed the hope to construct them for less in a shorter 
«« time." Mr. Eckford (the principal builder) never did demand $540,000 
as the price of each frigate ; nor in any of the letters of Messrs. Le 
R«y, Bayard & Co. to the Deputies is there any mention either of this 



.ipology of Arbitrators. 75 

The apology of the arbitrators, as it is disclaimed by those 
whom it was constructed to protect, we might with propriety 
refrain from considering ; but it is so extraordinary, that it 
calls for and justifies some remarks. Admitting that the 
houses were deceived as to the probable co.st of building the 
vessels when they commenced the operation, and have been 
disappointed in their sanguine calculations, did it not occur 
to the arbitrators to inquire how far this error was excusablaf 
how far it was to be imputed to their own culpable neglect in 
the omission of those inquiries, which, as faithful agents, 
bound to manage the concerns of their employers with at least 
the same care and diligence as their own, it was their duty to 
have made ? But from the nature of the plan which the houses 
adopted, it was utterly " impossible to calculate, with any 
degree of precision, the final amount ;" and therefore it seems 
they were excused from making any estimate or calculation 
whatever ! What difficulty existed in this case, that does not 
exist in every other? It is always impossible to ascertain, 
with precision, the final amount of contingent expenses : but 
does it therefore follow, that a probable estimate cannot be 
made, and ought not to be made, before they are incurred ? 
Were not the ship-carpenters as competent to furnish such an 
estimate for the use of the houses, as Mr. Eckford to make 
one for his own, as he must have done when he offered to 
contract ? Had the houses been called to act, not as agents, 
but contractors, would they not have ascertained, by the most 
careful inquiry, and with the most minute accuracy, the pro- 
bable limits of the expenses they would incur, in order to 
guide them in the price they should require ? Would they 
have possessed any means for making these inquiries as con- 
tractors, that were denied to them as agents ? To omit this 
previous diligence, had they been acting on their own ac- 
count, would have been most blameable imprudence ; but the 

sum, or of the prices which Mr. Eckford actually asked, nor any 
statement or pretence that this or any other sum had been demanded by 
any one. Yet all this is addressed to the Messrs Ricardo in London, 

who, by inquiring from the Deputies, were sure to ascertain that 

It baffles comprehension. 



~6 Apology of Mr. Bayard. 

omission, since they were acting as agents, (such is the doc 
trine of the arbitrators,) was proper, justifiable, and even 
necessary. 

With Mr. Bayard the ground of controversy is very nar- 
row, and shall soon be traversed. He says the Deputies had 
full and seasonable information of the cost of the frigates, 
because General Lallemand communicated to them the prices 
which Mr. Eckford had demanded; — and from these they 
ought to have inferred an expenditure at least equal to that 
which has occurred ; that is, the Deputies ought to have in- 
ferred, that the cost of each frigate would largely exceed half 
a million of dollars, because the price of $377,000, demand- 
ed by Mr. Eckford, had been rejected by the houses and Ge- 
neral Lallemand as extravagant, and the plan of building by 
days' work adopted in preference, from a conviction that a 
great saving would result, and for the avowed purpose of pro- 
tecting the Deputies against the large profits that Mr. Eck- 
ford w r as accustomed to exact. And the Deputies were under 
no delusion as to the ultimate cost: they had all the informa- 
tion necessary to guide their future conduct ; because in their 
reply to General Lallemand, they approve of the conduct of 
the houses in rejecting the proposals of Eckford, and censure 
his prices as exorbitant. Let it be remembered, that it is not 
now pretended that any other communication was made to the 
Deputies, either by General Lallemand or the houses, from 
the arrival of the General in the month of April, until the 31st 
of October, from which the Deputies could have inferred that 
the cost of the frigates would exceed the estimate of the 7th 
of December, upon which they had ordered them to be built. 
And let it also be remembered, that on the 31st of August 
Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard U Co. declare to the Deputies, that 
an approximate calculation of the cost was impossible to be 
furnished ; and that on the next day, Captain Chauncey de- 
livered to the houses an estimate in detail, which, if commu- 
nicated, would have furnished all the information that the 
Deputies had in vain solicited.* 

* Narrative, p. 10. In page 64 of the Report the arbitrators say, 
" the Deputies were apprised of the offers of Mr. Eckford, at the 



Confirmed Credits. 77 

4. The agreement between the Deputies and the houses, as 
clearly to be inferred from the correspondence, was, that con- 
firmed credits should from time to time be transmitted, as the 
exigencies of the work might require : but if, in the intervals 
of those credits, the funds should be exhausted, the houses 
should be permitted to draw, to relieve themselves from the ne- 
cessity of making advances, for such sums as their immediate 
expenses required. We contended that the houses had grossly 



commencement, and said they were inadmissible as to time.' 1 ' 1 And 
they print the last words in italics, with the obvious view that their 
readers should infer that the objections of the Deputies were confined 
to the time required, and that they did not regard Mr. Eckford's price 
as inadmissible. This is positively disingenuous and ur fair. In their 
reply to General Lallemand, the Deputies say — M We received your 
letter of the t5th of May, io which we see the exorbitant prices which 
your builders have demanded." Do the arbitrators mean to say that 
the Deputies were willing- to pay a price which they deem exorbitant? It 
is frequently insinuated in the Report, for the arbitrators insinuate much 
more than they assert, that expense was a subordinate consideration in 
the minds of the Deputies, and that expedition was the great object. If 
the work could be accelerated, they were not scrupulous as to the cost. 
Had the arbitrators perused with any attention the correspondence of 
the Deputies, they must have drawn an opposite conclusion. Econo- 
my is the topic on which they dwell with most frequency, and with most 
solicitude. We believe there is not a single letter from March to Oc- 
tober in which they do not inculcate its necessity ; and the following 
passage shows that it was not a subordinate, but the paramount consi- 
deration : "As zeal, activity, and above all things, economy, (sur tout 
l'economie) are the points the most essential to the success of the en- 
terprise, we shall be highly gratified to find that in respect to these 
points you have exceeded our expectations." (Letter to Le Roy, Bay- 
ard & Co. 10th March, 1825.) We must bestow a few words on Mr. 
Bayard. Mr. Contostavlos had said, that had the Deputies received 
seasonable information of the cost of the frigates, and of the time that 
would be required to build them, the funds transmitted to this country 
might have been applied to other objects. " A fleet of sloops of war 
might have been built or purchased, and seat to the succour of Greece, 
before the opening of the last campaign : Missolovghi would not have 
fallen.'" As to the cost, we have already seen Mr. Bayard's answer. 
As to the time, he says, that in General Lallemand's letter of the 16th 
April, the impossibility of placing the ships at the disposal of Greece 
during the approaching campaign, was plainly announced, and that the 
same fact was communicated in the letter of the houses of the 15th of 



^8 Confirmed Credits. 

abused the authority thus given them, by drawing without 
confirmed credits, when they had large funds in hand, and on 
the false allegation that those funds were exhausted, or about 
to be so. The evidence on this subject, our readers will find 
in Mr. Contostavlos' Narrative, p. 8, 9, and Mr. Sedgwick's 
Refutation, p. 37, 38, 39. 

The facts that the houses drew, without confirmed credits, 
for £75,000 of the £155,000 that they have received, and 
that each draft was accompanied with a false declaration of 
its being necessary to cover advances, are undeniable. Nor 
are we aware that they have been denied either by the arbitra- 
tors or by Mr. Bayard. We repeat, we nowhere find it denied 
that the houses, in their own letters, place their right to draiv 
the bills drawn without a confirmed credit, on the allega- 
tion that the funds were required for immediate use, and 
to protect them against advances ; nor that this allegation is in 
every instance untrue.* 

That the houses should have persisted in the course of 
drawing without a confirmed credit, and when they had large 



the same month. (Bayard's Expos, p. 8.) This reply involves a very 
artful perversion of Mr. C.'s meaning. Mr. C. writing in September 
1826, in speaking of the last campaign, meant the campaign opening in 
the spring of that year. General Lallemand and the houses writing in 
April 1825, say the ships could not be placed at the disposal of Greece 
in that campaign — meaning the campaign then commenced, the cam- 
paign of 1825 ; and Mr. C. never accused them of having said other- 
wise. This explanation being made, the original statement of Mr. C. 
recurs upon us in all its force. His* " pathetic lamentation," of which 
Mr. B. speaks, was not a fabrication, designed to inflame public preju- 
dice, but a resistless conclusion from the facts of the case. Missolonghi 
fell in March 1826 ; and most assuredly, by a proper application of the 
funds which the houses had received, that fall might have been prevent- 
ed, and probably in the very manner that Mr. C. has suggested. It is 
not, therefore, the fault of Mr. C, if the misconduct of the houses shall 
remain connected in public opinion with one of the " most signal cala- 
mities that has yet overtaken the Greeks." Considering the situation 
and feelings of Mr. C. as a Greek, we think he has expressed himself 
with singular moderation. 

* By consulting the interest accounts published in the Appendix, our 
readers will see the extent to which these allegations were untrue. 



Confirmed Credits. 79 

funds in hand, has always appeared to us one of the most ex- 
traordinary and suspicious facts that the controversy has dis- 
closed. We wish to draw to it the attention of our readers, 
as we believe its importance is by no means sufficiently un- 
derstood. 

The houses commence the building of the ships with 
funds in hand, the produce of the first confirmed credit, 
to the extent of more than $230,000, a sum amply sufficient to 
cover all their advances and responsibilities for many follow- 
ing months. During this period they might have written for 
and obtained new credits for such sums as they knew they 
would require. Such credits the Deputies had engaged to 
transmit. That they had the ability to perform this engage- 
ment the houses knew; that it was their sincere intention ta 
perform it, they certainly believed. Why then is not the plain 
course pursued of applying for additional credits, and waiting 
to draw until they are received ? By acting thus the house 
would not have delayed the operation a single instant ; they 
would have been under no necessity of making advances ; they 
would have obtained the guaranty of the Messrs. Ricardo on the 
whole amount of their bills, and they would not have been reduced 
to depend on the mere promise of the Deputies, or the faith of 
the Greek government for a single dollar of the expenditure. 
If a risk of this nature attached to any part of the transaction, 
it was applicable solely to the bills that were drawn without a 
previous confirmation. Why then did the houses deprive 
themselves of a security they must have valued, and incur 
without necessity a risk they must have dreaded ? 

The solution is this, had they applied for additional credits 
they must have specified the sums they required, and by doing 
this the meditated cost of the frigates would have been prema- 
turely disclosed. By drawing without a previous commu- 
nication of the sums required, this disclosure is avoided, and 
against the risk of this operation they guard themselves, by 
remitting their bills for collection instead of selling them, and 
by omitting to draw against them (as we firmly believe,) until 
they were informed of their acceptance. It will be said, for 
the importance of what we arc urging we know will be felt 



80 Confirmed Gr edits. 

and an effort to reply probably be made, that in their letters 
to the Deputies the houses frequently mention the irregularity 
of drafts not sanctioned by a previous credit, and express in 
strong terms their wishes that confirmed credits should be 
remitted. They do so, but in no single instance do they spe- 
cify the amount of the credits they require, and they refuse to 
do this, notwithstanding the Deputies at an early period de- 
clare their willingness to open them a credit to the extent of the 
sum that the frigates would require. On the 29th of June the 
Deputies transmit to each of the houses a confirmed credit of 
£1 5,000 sterling, and in their letter of advice they express them- 
selves as follows : " Had we been able to calculate the sum you 
" would require for the building of the frigates, and could tell 
" when the money would be necessary, we should not have he- 
" sitated to augment the credits which we open this day ; M 
evidently meaning that they were willing to augment the cre- 
dits to the extent of the necessary expenditures as soon as they 
were informed of their amount. In what manner do the houses 
meet this communication f Do they remove the ignorance 
of which the Deputies complain ? Do they inform them what 
further sums they would require, and when the payments would 
be necessary ? No, they do not even acknowledge the 
receipt of the credits? and make no reply to the letter ; but in 
the month of September they address themselves to the Messrs. 
Ricardo and request a credit to be opened to cover their bills 
without any statement or limitation of the amount, and then 
proceed to draw still with large funds in hand, and before 
the credit they ask is received. We now submit it to the seri- 
ous consideration of our readers, especially of our mercan- 
tile readers, whether this conduct admits of any other inter- 
pretation than that we have suggested. 

We have now enumerated the principal grounds on which 
we contended that the houses were not entitled to any recovery 
beyond a mere indemnity for actual and fair disbursements. 
There are others connected with the illegality of the enterprise 
and the deception practiced by the houses in relation to it that 
will be hereafter considered. But if those we have stated 
were supported by proof (whether they were so the public are 



Reduction of commissions. SI 

now enabled to judge) it will hardly be doubled that they were 
conclusive in law. That agents, negligent and unfaithful ? 
careless alike of the instructions and interests of their employ- 
ers, are entitled to a reward, we presume will not be asserted. 
We shall briefly state the reasons on which, on the suppo- 
sition that the housts wer entitled to any commissions, we 
claimed a reduction of those that were charged. We con- 
ceived that the agency of the houses was strictly mercantile 
in its character, and that the rate of their compensation was 
therefore tu be determined by the rules that mercantile usage 
has established. It was as merchants that they were employ- 
ed and trusted, it seemed to us a necessary consequence that 
as merchants they were to be rewarded. The purchase of 
military and naval stores of every description, is confessedly a 
mercantile operation ; equally so is the building of ships. We 
were unable to imagine that these operations lost their character 
by their union, and ceased to be mercantile because the stores 
to be purchased, were to be placed on board of the ships to be 
built. The building and equipment of a frigate is nothing 
more than a union on a large scale, of' various services and 
duties, all of which merchants are accustomed to superintend 
or discharge. If these views had prevailed, mercantile usage 
applied to the commissions of the houses woul i have reduced 
them to 5 per cent, including the commissions on the bills 
which they had drawn, and this, merchants would have es- 
teemed not merely a sufficient but a very liberal compensation. 
The saving to Greece would luve exceeded $40,000, and 
if applied to the purchase of provisions, might have rescued 
thousands of our fellow-beings from misery and famine. But 
the arbitrators were most unfortunately of opinion that the 
houses of Le Roy, Bayard & Co. and G. G. & S. Howland 
were not merchanu, so far as they claimed to be enriched, no 
matter with what consequences to others, out of the resources 
of Greece. They were clothed with a much more imposing 
character, their duties were vastly more responsible, and it 
would have been a degradation and an insult to have applied 
to their services those rules by which regular merchants are 
content to be governed. They were " Diplomatic Agents in 

T 



&2 Dijyloracttic Agents. 

u a very delicate and difficult affair with our government f f 
and it would have been absurd therefore to have confined their 
claims within the narrow limits of mercantile usage. 
To be sure, it is somewhat unusual to speak of the 
commissions of " Diplomatic Agents," and still more so 
to compensate such agents in any form at the rate which 
the arbitrators have allowed. Had Mr. William Bayard and 
Mr. Gardiner Howland been our ambassadors at the court of 
St. James; had they by their diplomatic skill and address set- 
tled our commercial difficulties with England and secured 
the West-India trade on terms of perfect equality; they would 
not have received from the gratitude of their country a sum 
at all approaching to that which the arbitrators have allowed 
them as the Diplomatic Agents of two Greek frigates ! Had 
the houses therefore presented themselves solely in their poli- 
tical character, we should without difficulty have encountered 
and defeated their claims; but when we attacked them as " Di- 
plomatic Agents," they produced their accounts, pointed to 
their commissions, and assured us with much humility that 
they were merchants. And when we seized them as merchants, 
and as we thought had stripped them naked, the arbitrators 
rescued them from our grasp, put on their robes of ambassa- 
dors, and taught them to speak with diplomatic contempt of 
commerce and all its usages. Theirs we found " was a special 
" confidence of a political as well as a commercial character;" 
and this undefined and undefinable union of opposite charac- 
ters entitled them to charge just what they pleased, and justi- 
fied the arbitrators in allowing' just what they charged. Their 
trust was special, their claims were special, and most special 
are the reasons invented to defend them. We may seem to 
speak lightly ; such are not our thoughts. We know not, 
that injustice is ever more revolting, that it ever provokes 
more indignant feelings than when with grave and plausible 
sophistry it seeks to deceive our understandings, whilst it 
robs our pockets. 

But since it is the alleged diplomatic character of the houses 
which furnishes their protection against the most serious 
charges we have made — the diplomatic nature of the trans- 



Diplomatic Agents. ■ 83 

action which forbids us to apply to it the principles of mer- 
cantile usage — let us inquire what are the evidences of this 
official distinction and merit. 

The arbitrators say,* " It was then proven that after the 
joint efforts of Gen. Lallemand and tire two houses to pur- 
chase frigates had proved abortive, and offer the rtconnoissan- 
ces political and diplomatic which the object and the occasion 
demanded, the agent agents) determined to build two fri- 
gates." This is a plain assertion that proof was given before 
the arbitrators, that negotiations such as the occasion demand- 
ed were carried on between the houses, or Gen. Lallemand, 
and our government. What the occasion demanded and 
what the houses actually effected, we learn by a subsequent 
part of the report, was nothing less, than to ascertain unequi- 
vocally" that the government would secretly favour the enter- 
prise ; and that it would meet with no opposition either from 
the government or laws of the United States." The arbitrators, 
avowedly from motives of delicacy strikingly resembling that 
of the houses themselves, have not thought proper to convey 
this idea in the form of an assertion, although they have ex- 
pressed it as plainly as language could do it. We will not 
stop to inquire why it was not thought necessary to ascer- 
tain whether the negotiation was carried on by General 
Lallemand, or the houses, and if exclusively by the General, 
how it could effect the question of commissions. It is enough 
to repeat our solemn declaration that there was no evidence 
before the arbitrators of any negotiation whatever between the 
bouses or Gen. Lallemand, and the government. We do not 
mean to say, merely, that there was no evidence competent to 
establish such a negotiation, but that there was no evidence of 
any kind on this point, nothing that was brought forward or 
claimed to be such evidence. 

But we need not confine our inquiry to the evidence before 
the arbitrators. The pretensions advanced in favor of the 
houses in relation to this point are not only not without evi- 
dence to support them, but are contradicted by the strongest 

^Report p. 17. 



84 Diplomatic Agents. 

evidence which the nature of things admits. The President of 
the United States had no power to suspend or interfere with the 
operation of the law, and consequently he could never have 
given the pretended assurance that the enterprise would en- 
counter no obstacle in the government or laws of the United 
States, and such an assurance, if given, would have been of 
no value. 

But if no such assurance could be obtained, was it not at 
least ascertained that the President would " refrain from any 
exertion of authority" against the enterprise ? This was not 
the pledge which was wanted, nor that which it is pretended was 
given But if the diplomatic negotiation of the houses is to 
be reduced within such narrow limits, let us inquire into the 
necessity and utility of the supposed pledge of the President. 
We are informed by Mr. Bayard that ships of war destined for 
the service of foreign governments were building in every 
quarter of the union; and that although Spain was represented in 
this country by a vigilant minister and by consuls in every 
port, the government of the United States had in no case seen 
fit to interfere. Whether our government was actuated by 
sympathies towards the Grand Sultan more efficient than the 
vigilant representatives of a friendly power — or whether it 
was stimulated by hatred towards a christian people strug- 
gling for freedom and religion against an infidel despotism, 
is not quite certain ; — but it is certain that there was in the 
councils of our country a deadly hostility and an active es ■ 
pionnage against every effort that might be made in favor of 
Grecian emancipation ; and th'at nothing short of the diplo- 
matic talent of the houses could appease this hostility, or 
elude its observation. 

But if the case before the arbitrators was entirely barren of 
evidence on this point, there is no lack of it in the defence of 
Mr. Bayard. 

It was very important to this gentleman to give an inno- 
cent interpretation to that part of the letter of the houses of 
fhe loth of April, in which it is asserted, to use the language 
of Mr. Gontostavlos, " that no law of the United States would 



Diplomaiic Agency. $5 

be violated, "and no risk incurred by the building and equip- 
ment of these frigates." For this very important purpose, this 
gentleman has chosen his own time for the alleged negotia- 
tions with our government, and he must now abide by his 
election. According to Mr. Bayard, supplies in ships and 
munitions of war had been supplicated from most of the Eu- 
ropean powers, " and the impossibility of granting them with- 
out violating the laws of neutrality, was the ground on whieh 
these applications were refused." The Greek deputies being 
well aware " that the laws of nations were binding on this 
government," were anxious to ascertain " its feelings and in- 
tentions in relation to the construction of ships o£ war in the 
ports of this country, for the service of the Greek navy."* 
The object of the deputies being thus understood by General 
Lallemand, "and that gentleman not choosing to rest on the 
presumptions afforded by the passing occurrences" mentioned 
by Mr. Bayard, " addressed himself to higher sources of informa- 
tion^ and by personal inquiries ascertained to his entire satis- 
faction thai the operations about to be undertaken would meet 
no opposition from the government or laws of the United 
States." "Upon his return to New- York, they were all 
equally satisfied upon that point," " and after an informal 
conversation with a professional friend," Mr. Bayard " ven- 
tured to adopt the opinion that, as a matter of right " they 
" could build the ships and send out their armament as cargo." 
Then Mr. Bayard emphatically adds, " this is the substance of 
our information to the deputies." 

There is some confusion in Mr. Bayard's argument, arising 
from an attempt to reconcile his own explanation of the letter 
in question, with that of his counsel ; but there is no ambiguity 
in his statement of facts. It mos»t clearly appears that Gen. 
Lallemand went to Washington, and by personal inquiries 
ascertained from the Executive, to his entire satisfaction, that 
the operation would meet with no opposition from the govern- 
ment or laws, and returned to New-York before the letter was 

*F,xp. v 



S6 Diplomatic Agency, 

written. But unfortunately for Mr. Bayard, Gen. Lallemand 
is precisely at issue with him on this point. 

During all jhis critical period, in which, according to Mr. 
Bayard, the government was seduced into an agreement to 
violate our neutrality and the law of nations, the General, 
according to his own statements, was occupied in the most 
innocent conferences with the houses at the city of New-York. 
Gen. Lallemand arrived from Liverpool at New-York 
on the 10th of April, and delivered the letter of instructions 
of which he was the bearer, on the 12th, and he was in 
conference with the houses every succeeding day until after 
the letter of the 15th was written. All this will appear by 
his letter of the lGth, of which we give the following trans- 
lation : 

New-York, 16 April, 1825. 
" Having arrived at New-York Sunday last, the \0th inst. 
'''I near evening, I saw Messrs. Bayard the next day but one, 
" and gave them the two letters of credit of £25,000 sterling 
" each, addressed by you to that house and Messrs. How- 
" land, as well as your letters, accompanying these letters of 
" credit. Tuesday, and the following days, we all met, 
" Messrs. Bayard, Howland, and myself, to consider the best 
" means to effect the design indicated by the instructions of 
" your government and by your own. It results from all 
" these investigations, (renseignemens.) even to this day, that it 
" is impossible to obtain from the government of this country 
" the means of action which would be so important for the 
li cause of Greece in the ensuing campaign." 

By the means of action here spoken of, the General doubt- 
less refers to the impossibility mentioned in the letter of the 
houses, of trafficking with the government by the purchase of 
its ships or timber. 

But for one unfortunate expression in Mr. Bayard's Expo- 
sition, any thing might have been supposed in his favor, at 
least by his friends. It might have been possible, and there- 
fore credible that the government came to New-York to con- 



Act of Congress. 87 

fer with Gen. Lallemand ; but it is certain according to Mr. 
33ayard that the General left the city, for he returned 10 it. 
It is hardly necessary to confirm the statements of Gen. Lal- 
lemand by referring to the respective circumstances under 
which he and Mr Bayard wrote. 

Such were the " reconnoissances, political and diplomatic" 
the existence of which the arbitrators did not hesitate to assert, 
but of which, from motives of delicacy, they could not " weigh 
the evidence" ! Such is the want of "delicacy and discretion," 
which, as the counsel allege, we have manifested towards the 
general government. Such, to use their language, have been 
our " efforts to goad the houses into the disclosure of confiden- 
tial transactions ! Such is the self-devoting silence, such the 
chivalrous spirit of the houses, by which they choose to sacri- 
fice themselves, rather than " disregard the injunctions of pru- 
dence and honor." 

There is a wide distinction in relation to this subject, which 
we hope will not be forgotten, between the executive and le- 
gislative branches of our government. What we have written 
has no relation to the act of Congress under which one of the 
frigates was purchased. It is not pretended or supposed that 
the houses had any influence or knowledge in relation to this 
transaction. It would hardly do to swell their claims of po- 
litical influence and favor so as to embrace a large majority of 
the Senate, and nearly every member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. If congress had thought lit to assist the Greeks, 
they would have needed no protection from the " delicacy," 
•' discretion," or " honor," of the houses. We will not pre- 
tend to assert or insinuate that the act in question had any other 
object than appears upon its face ; but if it did originate from 
motives to favour Greece, and efface the dishonor of the coun- 
try, we may venture to ask, whether there be an American 
citizen who dare impeach them? We entertain the most pro- 
found respect for the pacific policy of our government; but if 
this horrid war against every thing that can endear existence, 
had been considered an exception ; if the supplications of that 
afflicted people, passing by the politic cabinets of Europe and 
addressed to this country, as the natural avensrer of their 



Agreement ivith General Lallemand. 



*t> 



wrongs, had been answered by an immediate declaration of 
their independence, and an efficient pledge for its establish- 
ment, we cannot believe that this nation could have withheld 
its universal amen ! Nor can we doubt that they would have 
repeated it when the cemiter fell, as it must have soon fallen 
from the relaxed grasp of the Turk, and the remnant of that 
gallant and devoted race was seen gathered together, their 
smoking temples not yet rebuilt, in the open temple of the hea- 
vens, to celebrate their emancipation, and invoke the blessings 
of God upon their deliverers. — Such are not the wars of am- 
bition, and such are not their triumphs. 

But let it be that there is throughout our country, as there 
ought to be, a deep-rooted love of peace and dread of war ; 
let it be that the maxims of prudence would have prevailed 
over the impulses of feeling, and that no motives of humanity 
however imperative w r ould have been thought sufficient to autho- 
rise our entrance into a European war ; still we feel sure that any 
interposition short of actual hostilities or a violation of neutrali- 
ty would meet with universal satisfaction. We may be permit- 
ted to ask from our government, and we want nothing more, 
an honorable expression of the national feeling. We are un- 
der heavy obligations to humanity, to freedom, to religion ; 
and if possible, there are claims upon us not less importunate, 
which affect our character as American citizens. 

Mr. Contostavlos expressed his doubts whether the arbitra- 
tors would choose to defend their award on the ground of the 
pretended agreement with General Lallemand. These doubts 
are solved. On this agreement" the arbitrators have chosen 
in part to rest their defence ; and that the defence is valid, the 
author of the Report exerts all his ingenuity to prove. For 
the associates of Judge Piatt, an excuse, and a satisfactory 
excuse, is readily to be found. On this point, as a question 
of law, they submitted to his authority. But for Judge Piatt 
himself, what apology is to be made ? Is it possible that he 
was himself deceived ? — that he had any confidence in the 
reasons that he has so gravely stated ? How unpleasant is 
the dilemma that, without a sacrifice of his reputation and 
judgment as a lawyer, renders it impossible to defend Ins- con- 
duct as a man ! 



Agreement with Gen. JLaliemand* $9 

It is by no means our intention to enter into a full discus- 
sidh of this subject. The weakness and absurdity (the terms 
are not too strong) of the pretences that have been urged to 
establish this agreement, have been already sufficiently, and 
we believe, in the opinion of the public, very clearly exposed.* 
One or two observations, however, we must be excused for 
adding. 

It is admitted, that the power of General Lallemand to treat 
with the houses on the subject of their commissions, was not 
derived from the terms of the instructions. It is implied as 
incidental, and necessary to the exercise of the powers ex- 
pressly given. Without such an implied power, it is said that 
" the main object of building and equipping the frigates, as 
" soon as possible by the persons, and in the manner contem- 
11 plated by the Deputies, could not have been carried into 
" effect." To have required the houses to write to the Depu- 
ties on the subject of their commissions, and to have waited 
their answer before they commenced their agency, would have 
occasioned a delay " utterly ruinous to the object and designs 
of the Deputies." Nor could this " ruinous delay" have been 
prevented by a transfer of the agency to other merchants* 
General Lallemand had no authority to do this. " He came 
addressed exclusively to the two houses, and if they declined) 
he could make no contract with others without new powers." 
It results as a necessary consequence, that the <m\y means of 
preventing the enterprise from being defeated by delay, was 
to vest General Lallemand with the power of settling the 
commissions of the houses by previous contract. The power 
of thus contracting with the houses was necessary, indispensa- 
bly so, to be vested in some person in this country ; and it 
could be given to no person with such propriety as to Gene- 
ral Lallemand, " who was sent here to represent the Depu- 
ties.'^ We believe that this is a very fair statement of the 
reasoning of Judge Piatt; and we hope our readers will 

Refutation, p, 27, B, 9, 30. } Report, p. 54, & 

AT 



90 Agreement with Gen. Lallemand. 



■£> 



ascertain by actual comparison, whether it does not deserve 
this character. If this reasoning, therefore, when examined, 
shall be found to be weak and contradictory ; if, when pursu- 
ed to its legitimate consequences, it lands us in absurdity, — 
we are not to be blamed. 

The first assumption which the reasoning involves, is, that 
there existed a necessity for a previous agreement on the sub- 
ject of commissions. The supposed necessity isthe basis of 
the whole argument. It is because the act was necessary to be 
performed ; because without it " the main object of the build- 
ing," Sic. could v not have been carried into effect, that the 
power is created. 

But in what, do we ask, did this necessity consist ? Whence 
did it arise? Had no previous agreement been made, would 
the houses have lost all right to compensation ? or would the 
Deputies have been liable to such demands as their agents 
might choose to urge? No : nothing is more certain than 
that these consequences could not have resulted. Had there 
been no express agreement, the law would have implied one, 
and the houses would have been entitled to a fair and reason- 
able compensation, proportioned to the nature of the duties 
they were required to perform, and of the risk they were ex- 
pected to incur. Did the houses desire more than this ? Did 
the arbitrators wish that they should receive more ? It may, 
however, be said, had there been no previous stipulation, the 
houses would have been compelled to accept the same com- 
missions that merchants usually charge ; and this, considering 
the extraordinary nature of their agency, the difficulty and 
delicacy of their trust, would have been highly unjust. But 
if the facts supposed existed, this consequence would not have 
followed. The houses would not have been limited to the 
ordinary mercantile commissions. Judge Piatt himself refutes 
the objection. He declares that the agency of the houses was 
extraordinary in its character ; so much so as to constitute a 
case not governed by commercial usage : and upon this 
ground he decides, that without an express stipulation, the 
houses were entitled, as a fair and reasonable compensation, 
to commissions far exceeding those that are alone acknow* 



Foivers of Gen. LaUemnruh 91 

Jedged by mercantile usage. In saying this, Judge Piatt does 
not seem to be aware that he crumbles into atoms his whole ar- 
gument on the implied power and silent agreement of Ge- 
neral Lallemand. He demolishes its foundation. He forgot 
that the claims of the houses were placed on incompatible 
grounds, in his anxiety to defend them on all. Where the 
commissions are sought to be defended as fair and reasonable, 
though far exceeding such as are usually allowed, a special 
agreement is declared to be unneces>ary to authorise the 
houses to charge them ; — but when the same commissions are 
to be gathered as the fruits of an express contract, the neces- 
sity for the existence of such a contract becomes so imperative, 
that without it we are assured " the main object of the build- 
ing and equipment of the frigates could not have been carried 
into effect." 

We anticipate, however, a reply — a reply which the argu- 
ment of Judge Piatt was not improbably meant to indicate — 
admitting, we shall be told, that without an express stipula- 
tion, the houses would have been entitled to reasonable com- 
missions ; still they were not bound to trust to the contingen- 
cy that such would be allowed. They had a right to secure 
themselves by a previous stipulation ; and if, without a special 
agreement, they were unwilling to proceed, the necessity that 
General Lallemand should have the power of concluding it 
instantly arose, otherwise all the evil and ruinous consequen- 
ces on which the arbitrators have dwelt must have ensued, 
since " Gen. Lallemand was addressed exclusively to the two 
houses, and had no authority to address himself to any other." 

It is from the inability therefore of General Lallemand to 
entrust the agency to other persons, that his authority to con- 
tract with the houses is deduced It is on this fact, it is evi- 
dent, that Judge Piatt meant to lay the stress of his argument; 
yet we hope to render it evident, it is this very fact that is de- 
cisive to show that the power so boldly implied, was never in- 
tended to be given, and without injustice and absurdity could 
not be inferr d. Had General Lallemand possessed the 
right of transferring the agency, the implication of his right 
to contract for commissions would have been far more reason-, 
able. 



92 Bowers of Gen. Lallemand. 

The power is given to prevent the ruinous delay that must 
have occurred had the houses refused to undertake the agency 
until the rate of their commissions was settled. But suppose 
the commissions claimed had been such that General Lalle- 
mand, instead of remaining coldly silent, had felt it his duty to 
censure and reject them, must not the same consequences 
have ensued ? General Lallemand had no authority to ad- 
dress himself to other houses," The deputies must therefore, 
have been written to, and the whole enterprise must have been 
suspended until their assent was obtained either to the commis- 
sions demanded, or to the appointment of other agents. It is 
manifest that the dissent of General Lallemand from the com- 
missions claimed, must have led precisely to the same mis- 
chiefs as his want of power to agree to them. To prevent 
these mischiefs, therefore, it is not enough to give the power, 
but General Lallemand must be compelled to exercise it. 
Compelled to exercise it by assenting instantly and uncondi- 
tionally to the terms that the houses might please to dictate. 
And thus the implied authority of General Lallemand at last 
resolves itself into a power unlimited and discretionary in the 
houses to fix thcmadves the amount of their oivn compensation, 
and this is the power without which Judge Piatt assures us, 
the main object of " building and equipping the frigates ac- 
cording to the intentions of the deputies, could not have been 
carried into effect !" 

One observation more on this topic, and we shall have 
done. It is from the silence of General Lallemand that Judge 
Piatt infers the agreement as to the commissions, and that 
the law frequently attributes to silence the effect of positive 
assent, we do not deny ; but it never has this effect except 
when it is followed by an acquiescence in the acts which the 
agreement contemplates to be done. By what acquiescence 
was the silence of General Lallemand followed? Not' by 
that of the deputies, for they had no knowledge of the facts, 
the claims of Mr. Bayard were never communicated to them; 
who then acquiesced t General Lallemand, Judge Piatt 
gravely assures us. General Lallemand ? Could he have done 
Otherwise ? Had he any right to prohibit ? Does not 



Powers of General Lallcmand. 93 

acquiescence .imply this right? Is not "an omission to 
exercise it," the very meaning of the term ? That it is 
absurd to speak of the acquiescence of a party in that which he 
could not prevent, is evident not merely to legal apprehension, 
but to that of common sense. What could General Lalle- 
mand have done ? He could not recall the powers of 
the houses, for they were not derived from him. He could 
no more annul their commission than they could his — that 
he had no authority, express or implied, to supersede them, 
Judge Piatt himself, not merely admits, but asserts, " for he 
was addressed exclusively to the two houses, and could not ad- 
dress himself to any other." 

In what light this subject ought to have been considered by 
the arbitrators, we shall state in a few words. As neither 
the instructions nor the letters of the deputies contain any 
thing in relation to commissions, it is clear that they did not be- 
lieve that a special agreement on the subject was necessary, 
and as they do not provide for the contingency of a refusal 
of the agency by the houses, it is equally clear that they did 
not believe that any such agreement would be required, other- 
wise they would have authorised General Lallernand or some 
other person to have made it, and would have directed the 
course to be pursued in the event of a disagreement. The 
understanding of the deputies, therefore, certainly was, that 
the houses should receive such commissions as are reasonable 
and usual ; and such and such only were the houses, accept- 
ing the trust under these circumstances, entitled to charge.* 

* That no agreement was in fact made with Gen. Lallernand, is satisfac- 
torily shown by Mr. H. D. Sedgwick in his Refutation, to which we have 
referred. 

We have not noticed in our text, as our argument did not require it, 
the misrepresentations of Judge Flatt as to the powers of General Lallc- 
mand and the houses under the instructions of the deputies, but they are 
too singular and important to be passed without observation. Judge Piatt 
says " Genera] Lallernand had alone a negative on all the members of the 
•'two houses;" and in a subsequent passage that " the houses were re- 
• ; stricted from doing any act without his consent and approbation." Now, 
this is so far from being true, that the building of the vessels is exclusively 
rommitted to the bouses, and General Lal)emand> instead ^ r havtog" a ne- 



94 Commissions Reasonable. 

The last ground on which the arbitrators defend the com- 
missions is, that they were in fact fair and reasonable, a com- 
pensation happily proportioned to the services performed and 
the risk incurred. On this subject, it is not our intention to de- 
tain our readers with any remarks. It has been amply dis- 
cussed, and is fully understood. We leave it to the public to 
determine how far it was honest and conscientious in the hou- 
ses to exact those commissions, and discreet and just in the 
arbitrators to allow them. If the minds of any of our readers 
are yet in suspense, they may perhaps assist their reflections by 
consulting a statement they will find in the appendix. (Appen- 
dix No. 9.*) 

gative on their proceedings, had no voice on the subject. The Fourth 
Article of the instructions declares, that orders should be given and con- 
tracts made for the building- of two frigates, by the American houses, without 
any mention of the name of Gen. Lallemand ; and the Fifth directs Gen. Lal- 
lemand alone to ascertain that the frigates should be of the first class, the ma- 
terials of the best quality, and that in the building, &c. the rules of the 
U. States navy should be followed ; and so far as was necessary to the ex- 
ecution of these powers General Lallemand had undoubtedly a negative, 
and more than a negative, on the proceedings of the houses, but no further. 
They might contract with whom they pleased, upon what terms, and at 
what price they pleased, and his consent and approbation were not neces- 
sary to the validity of a single act. It is true, there are other powers em- 
braced in the instructions that were clearly meant to be joint, but in all 
that relates to the mere building of the ships, the powers of the houses and 
General Lallemand are not merely several and distinct, but the separation 
is carefully marked. 

* " We offered to show by the production of letters, and contracts, which 
" were objected to by the counsel of Mr. Contostavlos, and rejected as in- 
" admissible, that we were to be compensated at the rate of 10 per cent, for 
" the purchase and construction of a ship of 74 guns, 2 frigates, and a sloop 
cc of war, for one of the Republics of Spanish America, and to be paid by bills 
" on London, drawn against the loan effected in thatcountry." (Exp. p. 16.) 
So far Mr. Bayard. The facts are these. One of the counsel of Mr. Bayard 
(Mr. D. B. Ogden,) offered to r ad in evidence an extract from a letter 
for the purpose of proving the facts that Mr. B. has mentioned. In making 
the offer, Mr. O. remarked, that he knew that the evidence was not properly 
admissible, and he supposed would be objected to, but he wished the arbi- 
trators to note the offer. We requested a perusal of the letter that we 
might determine whether we would consent to its production. It was 
handed to us and read. If the whole were read, we were satisfied it would not 



Vouchers, Bills of Parcels, tyc. 96 

We now come to the subject of disbursements. We had an 
Unquestionable riiiht to demand competent evidence of the 
actual payment of the money: charged to us. We had a 
right to know what these moneys were paid for, and when 
they were paid. Without this knowledge we could not test 
the accuracy or fairness of the charges for disbursements in 
any particular whatever. For the purpose of making this 
examination, we were desirous of inspecting the original bills of 
parcels and the receipts furnished to the houses. We were 
the more so, because we recollected the repeated declarations 
made by the houses in their letters, <hat they paid for every 
thing in advance, and we knew that according to the curse of 
trade, many of the articles in question were not considered 
cash articles, and were usually and indeed almost universally 
sold to persons of good standing on a long credit. Before we 
go into an examination of the secondary evidence, if evidence 
it can be called, which is now brought forward to show the 
cost of these frigates, it is proper that our readers should un- 
derstand with what success we applied for the primary, and 
necessary evidence of the alleged disbursements, and in what 
manner its production was evaded. 

Mr. Bayard's statement on this subject is as follows : 

: < It is alleged throughout the Narrative, that accounts 

< and vouchers were studiously withheld by the two houses I 
<< shall content myself with saying, that the assertion is utterly 

< false and unfounded in all its bearings. A statement of the 
« expenditures, as far as one could be made, was handed to Mr 

< Contostavlos immediately after his arrival, and a regular ac- 
« count as soon as it could he prepared. It will be seen by the 

< Report, that the original bills and vouchers, supporting every 
« item of the accounts, werelaid before the arbitrators, and with 

prejudice but benefit our clients. We therefore returned it to Mr. O ff den 
with our permission to read not an extraet but the letter. Of this offer Mr 
O ff den did not avail himself; the letter was instantly withdrawn, and Z 
cording to our recollection, the request to the arbitrators "to note the 
offer," was not repeated. This was the only letter offered to be read for th! 
purpose mentioned by Mr. Bayard, and the only contract produced wl 
Emitted, and has been published in Mr. Sedgwick's Refutation 



1*6 Vouchers, Bills of Parcels, ^c. 

(i all the other papers, were by them delivered to Mr. Sedgwick. 
K (p. 42 of the Report.) Some time was, however, necessa- 
u rily consumed in collecting the various bills of parcels and 
" receipts ; but as soon as it was possible, they were laid be- 
" fore the arbitrators — they were subsequently delivered to 
" Captain Earle, to verify the inventories furnished to the ar- 
H bitrators by Captain Chauncey." 

Mr. Bayard here speaks of a statement of expenditures 
and a regular account. The first was handed^ he says, soou 
after Mr. Contostavlos' arrival, which it will be recollected 
was on the 1 2th of April, and the other as soon as it could be 
prepared. The regular account here referred to was delivered 
on the 15th of June as appears by the letter of both houses en- 
closing the same. 

This regular account differs in many particulars, it is true^ 
from the statement of expenditures, but not in any thing which 
could denominate it a regular account. It contained no 
statement as to the quantity or price of the articles for which 
the payments had been made. It was unaccompanied with any 
bills of parcels or other document, by which the quanti- 
ties, prices, or any other particular of the articles purchased, or 
the charges therefor, could be ascertained. In short, will our 
readers believe it ? It is the very account contained in the 
appendix of Mr. Contostavlos' Narrative, and on which he 
comments with so much force. If Mr. Bayard speaks of both 
houses ; both accounts are there published. 

The sum total of expenses incurred in building and equip- 
ping the Hope, according to the statement of expenditures afore- 
said, including "estimated balances due," was $ 404,845 40. 
exclusive of commissions. The sum total of the same expenses, 
according to the " regular account" furnished " as soon as it 
could be prepared," was $396,851 66. Mr. Bayard proceeds to 
say, " that it will be seen by the report (of the arbitrators) that 
the original bills and vouchers supporting every item of the 
account were laid before the arbitrators, and with all the other 



Bills of Parcels, tyc. 97 

papers were by them delivered to Mr. Sedgwick ;" and in 
proof of this he refers to page 42 of the Report 

Did Mr. Bayard mean by original bills, the bills of parcels, 
or any thing else ever called by thai name? He knew that 
no such bills were ever delivered to Mr. Sedgwick. But let 
us before we proceed further, turn to the Report of the arbi* 
trators. They say, speaking of what took place after the 
award, " Messrs. Sedgwick then applied to the arbitrator for a 
re-delivery of the papers, accounts, and correspondence, which 
had been submitted by them on the hearing, and presuming 
that all parties assented to the award, the arbitrators without 
reserve, and without note or memorandum, distributed the 
large mass of books and papers relating to the controversy to 
the respective parties as claimed by them, without nice discri- 
mination or inquiry who had furnished them."* 

It will be seen by the above, that the arbitrators say nothing 
of bills of parcels, or any bills whatever. It will also be 
recollected, that one of the most serious charges of Mr. 
Contostavlos' pamphlet against the houses, and against the 
arbitrators also, was that he had never been able to obtain bills 
of parcels, either before or after the arbitration, and that con- 
sequently he had no means of detecting errors of any kind J 
or of ascertaining whether the expenditures had been made 
with economy or otherwise. 

The arbitrators do not attempt to deny this charge, or to 
justify themselves against it. Mr. Bayard, after referring to 
their reports in proof of his assertion that the original bills of 
parcels were delivered to Mr. Sedgwick, proceeds to assert 
that they were in fact as soon as it was possible, laid before 

* The arbitrators add, •« several of those papers and documents hare 
since been sought for in vain." The papers which Judge Piatt speaks of 
were delivered to me ; not one of them was sought for in vain, or sought 
for at all from me, unless the letter of M. . Eckford to Gen. Lalleraand, 
offering to build the frigates, was among these papers. That letter has been 
applied for in behalf of Gen. Lallemand. and if it was among those paper*, 
(I think it was not) it is lost. We deem that letter an important document) 
nnd should be happy to be able to produce it R< Sedgwick, 

N 



98 Bills of Parcels, tyc. 

the arbitrators, and subsequently delivered to Capt. Earl, to 
verify the inventories furnished by Capt. Chauncey. 

A simple statement of the truth of the case will flash con- 
viction at once into the minds of our readers, not only as to 
this topic, but every other which could be affected by the re- 
presentations of Mr. Bayard. As Mr. Contostavlos has 
stated, he did repeatedly express to his counsel, both verbally 
and by letter, the strongest desire that, as far as practicable, 
bills of parcels, vouchers, receipts, he. should be prod ced, 
showing the periods when the payments were made, and what 
they were for. We did repeatedly call for these documents, 
and were told, from day to day, that they should all be pro- 
duced. Still the promise was not complied with. We were 
then told that the production of strict evidence as to the dis- 
bursements of the houses, and, in particular, of the bills of par- 
cels and original receipts, would require a longer time than was 
allowed for the arbitration. We did — or rather, one of the 
counsel did — then acquiesce in the proposal of the houses to 
furnish, not the original receipts, but general and duplicate 
receipts ; each of which should express all the payments made 
to the party giving it. 

After Mr. Contostavlos' return from Washington, he instruc- 
ted us positively not to proceed until the bills of parcels were 
furnished. Mr. Duer then informed the arbitrators, that we 
were bound by positive instructions to withdraw the consent 
which we had given, and require these bills. 

A new assurance was then given by Mr. G. G. Howland, 
on the part of the houses, that all these bills should *be pro- 
duced. It was suggested at the same time, that the hearing 
need not be delayed on that account ; and accordingly it went 
on. We owe an apology to Mr. Contostavlos, to our clients, 
and to every friend of the cause which was placed in our hands 
and those of our associate counsel, for having consented to 
sum it up, before the production and full examination of these 
bills. We did it from a strong sense that it was absolutely 
necessary to give effect to the arbitration, which was restricted 
to a very limited period, and for the despatch of one of the 
frigates. 



Bills of Parcels, $-c. 99 

In point of fact, these bills of parcels never were produced 
before the arbitrators. Not one of them ever came to our 
knowledge. Mr. Contostavlos actually left this country with- 
out any knowledge, that he had been furnished with the 
articles for winch he had paid, or as to the prices charg- 
ed therefor. Thr se bills of parcels were absolutely necessary 
not only for the purposes above mentioned, but to verify the 
inventories of Capt Chauncey, that is, to show that all the 
articles charged for by the houses, were actually contained in 
those inventories. After thus verifying the inventories, no- 
thing would have remained to be done, except to compare them 
with the ships, and the articles themselves. 

This latter comparison, although extremely unsatisfactory 
in its nature, was all that remained in our power ; and Capt. 
Earl was, at our request, appointed by the arbitrators to the 
office of making it. After seeing the statement published by 
Mr. Bayard on this subject, and feeling the astonishment which 
our readers must now understand and participate, we called 
on Capt. Earl to learn whether the bills of parcels had ever 
been placed in his hands, having no suspicion that such was 
the fact. The substance of his information respecting them 
will be found in the correspondence which afterwards took 
place between us, and which we present entire to our 
readers. 

New- York, Nov. 19 1826. 
Capt. John Earl, 

Having been informed in conversation by you this morning, 
and for the first time, that bills of parcels of articles for the 
Lib rator and Hope had been p it into your possession, we 
as of you the favour to give us an explicit answer to the fol- 
lowing questions 

1st. By whom were you appointed to perform the service 
which you undertook in the presence of the arbitrators, Messrs. 
Piatt, De Rham, and Ogden ? 

2d. What was the precise service which you were requested 
to perform ? 

3d. Did you receive any, and what bills of parcels, and 
when, and from whom, and at what place ? 



100 Bills of Parcels, fyc. 

4th. Did you receive any injunction, and from whom, not 
to let the said bills of parcels go out of your hands, and to 
return them to the parties from whom they were received, and 
did you engage to comply with such injunction ? 

5th. Do you know that it was known to either of the coun- 
sel for ti e deputies, that said bills of parcels were delivered 
to you ? 

6th. Did you ever compare said bills of parcels with the 
materials and supplies shown to you, or with the inventories 
delivered to you, and were you ever required to make such a 
comparison ? 

7th. Do you know whether the bills of parcels correspond- 
ed in amount with the items contained in the general account? 
of the houses and included all those items ? or whether the 
articles specified in the bills were delivered with or contained 
in the frigates ? 

8th. To whom did you deliver said bills of parcels ? 

We feel persuaded that you will not hesitate to answer the 
above inquiries, however painful it may be to you to have your 
name introduced into this unhappy controversy. 

Yours, &c. 

JOHN DUER. 
R. SEDGWICK. 

New-York, Nov. 20 1826. 
Gentlemen, 

Your note of yesterday was handed me this moment, putting 
to me certain interrogatories touching the affairs of the Greek 
ships. — Till now I had hoped the part assigned me and the 
manner it was performed, would have excused me from any 
part in this truly unhappy controversy ; nor do I conceive the 
parties or the public will be enlightened by the answers re- 
quired. 

In reply, however, to your 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th in- 
terrogatories, I answer, 1 was requested by the Greek agent 
and his counsel, to call at the Exchange Coffee House at 4 
p. m. of that day, when the object of such call would be explain- 
ed. I called at the appointed hour, and was informed by the arbi- 



Bills of Parcels, $-c. 101 

trators (which appeared to be fully assented to by all present,) 
they wished me to compare the ships Liberator and Hope, 
together with all their appurtenances on board and in stores, 
with their inventories, and to verify the same. The day fol- 
lowing, I received at the hands of Judge Piatt, an inventory 
for each ship, endorsed on the back, " Copies of inventories 
sent to Washington" and also an introductory letter to Capt. 
W. Chauncey, requesting him to facilitate my operations, signed 
" J. Piatt andA.Ogden." At the same time I did receive from 
William Bayard, jun. a bundle of papers said to be vouchers, 
and a promise from G. G. &l S. Howland to furnish theirs 
also, which was afterwards handed me (at their counting-room,) 
with an injunction not to suffer these papers to go out of my 
hands on any pretence whatever, stating that in many instan- 
ces they were the only vouchers they had for moneys paid ; 
the time and manner in which I received these papers, and 
from the very nature of the subject, the conclusion was irre- 
sistible (but without a knowledge of the fact) that those 
vouchers had been before the arbitrators and counsel for the 
parties. 

6th and 7th. I did attempt a comparison of those vouchers 
with the articles specified in the inventory, but for want of a 
general account of disbursements, found them in a manner 
useless, and in fact, I might consider such comparison incom- 
patible with the duty assigned me, and interfering with the 
exclusive prerogative of the arbitrators. 

1 returned the vouchers as received to the respective 
parties. With a sincere wish that this unhappy affair was ami- 
cably adjusted, 

I am very respectfully yours, 

JOHN EARL. 

R. Sedgwick and John Ducr, Esqs. 

Nov. 21. 
Capt. John Earl, 

Sir, it does not certainly appear from your favour of yes- 
terday, whether you received an injunction from Mr. Bayard,in 
rpffard to the papers which you speak of as having been hand- 



1 02 Bills of Parcels, fyc . 

ed to you by him, as well as from Mr. Howland, not to suffer 
them to go out of your hands. Will you have the goodness 
to inform us what was the fact ? 

You will also much oblige us by informing us, as nearly as 
you can from memory or otherwise, on what day of July you 
received the inventories from Judge Piatt ; on what day you 
received Mr. Howland's papers, and on what day or days you 
returned the papers to those gentlemen ; and also on what day 
you delivered the inventories made out by yourself to the ar- 
bitrators ? 

Mr. Duer unites with me in this request, although he is not 
present at this moment to subscribe this letter. 

R. SEDGWICK. 

New-York, Nov. 25 1826. 
Gentlemen, 

In reply to your note of 21st inst. I cannot state positively, 
but my impressions are, when I received the papers from 
William Bayard, jun. he did enjoin it on me " not to let them 
go out of my possession ." Nor am I positive, as to the day I 
received the inventories from Judge Piatt, and the papers al- 
luded to. 

It must have been one or two days prior to the 20th July, 

as I find my report was dated on the 29th. It was, however, 

some days after the last mentioned period, I returned the 

papers to the respective parties of whom they were received. 

Respectfully yours, 

JOHN EARL. 

R. Sedgwick and John Duer, Esqrs. 

From the foregoing correspondence it appears'quite doubt- 
ful what the papers were which Capt. Earl calls vouchers. 
It further appears that Capt. Earl "considered, and justly, that 
his duty went no farther than to compare the inventories of 
Capt. Chauncey as far as he could, with the articles therein 
mentioned, and that it did not comprise an examination of the 
original bills of parcels. It further appears that if he had 
endeavoured to compare the bills of parcels, supposing he hnd 



Bills of Parcels, fyc. 103 

iliem, with the articles, that it would have been impossible to 
do so from want of a general account, and from want of time. 
It also appears that the papers which Capt. Earl had, were 
not to be delivered to us " on any pretence whatever," and 
that he never informed us that they had been placed in his 
possession. 

Our readers will now judge with what propriety the arbi- 
trators say, that the ships " have, we doubt not, cost much more 
" than Gen. Lallemand or the houses anticipated. But there 
" was no evidence nor any attempt to prove that there had 
n been any waste of labour or materials, or that more had 
f< been paid in any instance for labour or materials than was 
;: necessary ; and it is known that the arbitration was held in 
"this city which was the theatre of operations, and there- 
•- by every facility was afforded to detect false charges, frauds, 
" or misconduct." 

Thus it is taken for granted by men acting as judges in 
the case, that the cost of these vessels exceeded the anticipa- 
tions of the houses, without any evidence as to what those 
anticipations were, and without any evidence whatever as 
to the cost, except the allegations of witnesses as to the 
great rise of materials and labour. But we are told that 
every facility was afforded to detect false charges, frauds, 
or misconduct. How could we detect false charges without 
knowing what the charges made were for? How could we 
detect Brands without the least cine to the quality, quantity, 
or price of the articles ? If we had been possessed of every 
facility to which we were entitled, the want of time would 
have rendered a full and satisfactory examination impossible. 
It must be recollected that the arbitration was originally assent- 
ed to by the houses, upon condition of limiting the period of 
the award, and that the two enlargements of time afterwards 
granted, were consented to by them for the purpose of com- 
pleting the investigation, such as it was, and not to afford the 
means of making one which would be satisfactory. Add to 
this, that there was no process to compel the attendance of 
witnesses, except under an obsolete statute, which was resort- 
ed to with regard to several witnesses without effect ; and the 



1 04 Disbursement ts — Cost of the Frigates . 

facilities to detect false charges and frauds, will be fully un- 
derstood. 

We are now prepared to go into an examination of the evi- 
dence which Mr. Bayard has brought forward in regard to 
the cost of the frigates, and which we have before called 
secondary, but which in strictness, considering that better was 
in his power and has been withheld, is no evidence at all* 
The only proper use of the estimates which have been pro- 
duced, and which we are now to examine, would have been 
to test the skill and discretion, or the wastefulness and extra- 
vagance with which the disbursements had been made. We 
are now compelled to examine them chiefly for the purpose of 
ascertaining what the disbursements were, or in other words, 
what the cost of the frigates actually was. 

Mr. Bayard attempts to show that the cost of one of these 
frigates, calculated upon the basis of the estimate furnished to 
the Greek Deputies by his house in December, 1824, and 
making the proper allowance for the rise of materials and la- 
bour, would amount to $503,125.* 

If we are right in our supposition that the estimate sent by 
Le Roy, Bayard &• Co. to the Greek Deputies in December, 
1824, was intended to be, and actually was, an estimate of 
the expense of building a frigate of the largest size in our 
navy, and equal to the Brandywine or the Greek frigates, 
then we shall have nothing to add to that, except such sums 
as should be added on account of the rise of materials and 
labour, and on account of the extra equipment of the Greek 
frigates. 

We shall add for the rise of materials and labour, what we 
deem rather a large allowance, viz. 20 instead of 25 per 
cent, this latter amount being claimed by Mr. Bayard upon 
the authority of the testimony of Commodore Chauncey. 
Commodore Chauncey did not pretend to speak* from any 
calculation that he had made. He spoke merely of his " im- 
pressions." In the next place it appears, that Commodore 
Chauncey's impressions were founded in a good measure 

F.xp. p. 4. 



Disbursements — 'Estimates. 105 

upon the rise of prices during the summer of 1825. It appears 
from Mr. Demon's testimony,* that this firm had on hand when 
they made the contract, a considerable quantity of materials 
which were "furnished for the ship by fair appraisement," 
and that the price of materials " rose very much during the 
work." Many of the contracts for materials Were made 
in October and November, a period beyond that to which the 
testimony of Capt. Chauncey seemed to refer. Besides ail 
this, it appears by a comparison of the estimate forwarded by 
Le Roy, Bayard h Co. with that of the Liberator made b^ 
the navy commissioners, that the same items, as far as a com- 
parison can be made, are charged rather higher in the former 
than in the latter. To this it may be added, that the deduction 
which we claim in our favour, is not greater in proportion 
than that which we allow to the opposite party,* on account 
of an over estimate by Commodore Chauncey of the difference 
between live oaU and white oak. 

As to the allowance to be made for the extra armament and 
equipments, for the sake of. avoiding all dispute we take the 
statement of the arbitrators. f This statement they make 
from an inventory delivered to them by Capt Chauncey, we 
know not when, but presume for the purpose of making up 
their Report. 

According to these principles, the following statement is 
made : 
Amount of the estimate sent by Le Roy, Bayard 

& Co.J: 247,500 00 

20 per cent, on this amount on account of the 

increased price of wages and materials, when 

the Liberator and Hope were built - - 49,500 00 

Extra armament and equipment of both frigates, 

according to the Report of the arbitrators, 

$34,256 44, half is 17,128 22 



From this we deduct the difference 
between live oak and white oak, 



$304,128 22 



Rep. p. 25. -r Rep. 65. t App. No. 4. 

O 



1 06 Disbursements — Estimates-. 

(which Commodore Chauncey put 
at $25 or 30,000,) according to 
the estimate of the commissioners. 19,800 00 
We must also deduct (the estimate 
being of a ship completely equip- 
ped,) the amount which remained to 
be added to the ship Hope and her 
equipments, the ship being in an 
unfinished state, of which $ 1 7,183 
63 is for articles taken from the 
Liberator. - - - - *29,416 63 

— 48,416 63 



Total cost, $265,711 59 

Let us now examine the calculation of Mr. Bayard: 
Amount of the estimate of December 1824, - $247,500 

To which add, 
1st. For the difference of tonnage, the 1,500 tons in 

said estimate being supposed to be carpenters' 

measurement and the Hope being alleged to be 

2,100 tons by that measurement. - 99,000 

2d. Additional expense per ton incident to a heavier 

ship. ------- 22,000 

3d. Cost of extra shot, sails, spars, kentledge, casks, 

&c. ------- 30,000 

4th. 25 per cent, increased prices of materials and 

labour. - - - - - - - 99,625 

5th. Pay of Capt. Chauncey, (why not $5,750 ?) 5,000 

$503,128 
" All fully explained and proved before the arbitrators." 

* The above sum of $29,416 63 is taken from a statement handed to us 
by Capt. Earl, according to the best calculation he could make from his 
own purchases, and his recollection of those made by others. It is of course 
exclusive of the provisions, powder, pay of the men and officers, and of all 
charges except such as properly belong to the ships. It will be seen by the 
estimate of Capt. Chauncey (viz. App. No. 8.) made on the 20th of April, 
after which nothing of any importance was furnished to the ship, that the 
sum which we have deducted is not too large. If there be any error in 
This statement, it can be only in the sum of #17,188 63, deducted as above- 



Examination of Mr. Bayard's Estimate. 107 

We shall examine this presumptuous statement with a sin- 
gle reference to its accuracy, and leave the public to make 
such moral inferences in regard to it as they may think neces- 
sary. 

We must examine each of these items separately. First, as 
to the tonnage. Mr. Bayard says that the tonnage intended in 
the estimate, was according to carpenters' measurement. The 
comparison which we have partially made, and which our v 
readers can pursue still farther between this estimate and that 
of the Liberator, shows that this idea of carpenters' measure- 
ment was fabricated for the occasion. But we must detain 
our readers for a moment longer on this subject. 

Mr. Bayard says that the estimate furnished to the Depu- 
ties was " taken from a printed document of the Navy De- 
partment." We challenge Mr. Bayard to produce it. We 
have every reason to believe that there never was such a 
document. No frigate of 1,500 tons carpenters' measurement 
was ever built in this country.* 

The law of the United States regulates the mode of ascer- 
taining the tonnage — according to this regulation every vessel is 
measured by the surveyor of the port before her register is 
obtained. The register of the Hope was thus obtained, and 
Mr. Robert Bayard took the usual oath for that purpose, and 
stated therein that the Hope was a vessel of 1778 tons. 
There is no tonnage known to the Government except that fix- 
ed by law. What possible reason then is there for supposing 
that this estimate was taken from the Navy Department ? 

The second item is for the additional expense per ton inci- 
dent to heavier ships. 

This is given without explanation, and is disproved by the 
estimate under consideration ; by which it appears,! tnat no 

* The only important difference between carpenters' measurement and 
Government or Custom House tonnage, is, that by the latter three fifths of 
the breadth of the vessel is deducted from the length and the residue only, 
instead of the whole length according to carpenters' measurement, is mul- 
tiplied into the breadth and depth. Vid. Tngersol's Di>. Bhint's Commercial 
Dig. 14. 

•f Appendix. No. 7. 



108 Examination of Mr. Bayard* $ Estimate* 

such increase was supposed in any of the grades from a 36 
to a 50 gun ship inclusive. 

The third item is $30,000 for extra shot, &c. We prefer 
the authority of the arbitrators, and have adopted it. 

We have already discussed the fourth item, as to the 25 per 
cent. ;* and we leave the last without comment, being willing 
that our readers should put it at what they please. 

But we are willing to make any possible allowance in fa- 
vour of the houses which can be claimed upon any supposi- 
tion within the compass of reason. Our largest frigates rate 
as forty-fours, and are built under a law authorizing the build- 
ing of 44 gun ships. The old ships of this class measure 
about 1560 tons (government tonnage). The new ships of 
this class measure about 1700 tons. This we state upon the 
most satisfactory authority. We believe the Brandy wine is 
the first ship built of this latter class, or rather, size. Suppose, 
then, that the estimate sent to the deputies referred to the size 
of the old frigates; then we have to allow for the difference 
between 1560 and 1778 tons, the tonnage of the Hope. The 
cost would then be as follows : 

Amount before stated, $265,711 59 

Add for difference of tonnage, as above, at 

$165 per ton, 35,970 00 

$301 680 59 

It must be added, however, that, as we are informed by a 
ship-builder as respectable as any in the United States, this 
calculation on account of the increased tonnage is entirely 
delusive, the difference of expense, in such a case, not being 
at all proportioned to the difference of tonnage. 

The next evidence on this point, produced by Mr. Bayard, 
is taken from the case of the Brandywine. 

According to the Report of the Arbitrators Commodore 
Chaunceyis made to say, that :t the public statement of the 
cost of the Brandywine ($273,000) does not include her masts, 

* Mr. Bayard charges the 25 per cent, upon the extra shot, sails, 
spars, kr. 



Com, Chauncey's Testimony — Cost of Brandy wine. 109 

spars, sails, and rigging." Mr. Bayard says,* " he" (Com- 
modore Chauncey) "frankly admitted that the masts, spars, 
rigging, and sails, were not included in the estimate," &c. — 
The document, to which Commodore Chauncey referred, was 
an estimate of the cost of the Brandywine, produced by Mr. 
Contostavlos, and admitted in evidence. Unfortunately that 
document is lost, and we much regret it. It must have contained 
masts, spars, and rigging, by name, (though, perhaps, not all \) 
for Commodore Chauncey said, that the masts, spars, and rig- 
ging, (those in the estimate) appeared to be estimated low. 
He further stated, that masts, spars, rigging, &tc. were taken 
from other vessels ; and that the practice in the navy, in such 
cases, was not to charge such articles to the new ship until 
they were supplied to the ships from whence they were taken; 
but he did not know, that the supplies to the vessels, thus 
partially dismantled, had not been made, and, consequently, 
charged to the Brandywine and included in the estimate. 

Such was Commodore Chauncey's testimony as taken from 
the notes of Mr. R. Sedgwick — Mr. Duer was not present; and 
such, we think, it would appear to have been substantially by the 
letter which he had the goodness to address to us on the sub- 
ject, in reply to one in which we requested him to correct any 
mistakes which might be found in our statement of his evi- 
dence, f 

Mr. Bayard asks, why Commodore Chauncey's testimony, 
as he has represented it, was suppressed by Mr. H. D. Sedg- 
wick ? This we have answered. But it is proper to add, 
that Mr. H. D. Sedgwick stated the cost of the Brandj'wine 
at $273,000 " as completely equipped," because the estimate 
produced by Mr x Contostavlos, and admitted in evidence as 
before mentioned, purported upon its face to be a complete 
estimate, that is, contained nothing from which it could be 
inferred that it was not so ; and Mr. H. D. Sedgwick did not 



* Exposition p. 12. We beg our readers to turn to Mr. Bayard's state- 
ment. 

I Vide Appendix, No. 7. 



1 1 Estimate of the Liberator. 

deem it material to insert what he regarded as a mere conjec- 
ture of Commodore Chauncey. 

The practice in the navy is, doubtless, as Com. Chauncey 
has stated ; and we have endeavoured to ascertain whether 
any thing and what is to be added to the estimate of 273,000 
dollars. All we can learn is, that the accounts of the Bran- 
dywine are not yet completed ; and we have not, therefore, 
been able to learn what her entire cost was. This ship was 
fitted out with more than ordinary expense, on account of the 
special service which she was about to perform.f 

The safest calculation which can be made of the actual cost 
of the Hope is to be derived from the estimate of the Libe- 
rator, by the Commissioners of the Navy. It is matter of 
surprise, that Mr. Bayard, who had been treated with so much 
courtesy by the government in his diplomatic negotiations, 
should have made the ungracious suggestion, " that the go- 
vernment of the United States in the plenitude of its gene- 
rosity has thought fit to receive one of the Greek frigates at 
about half its cost." No man can read this without disgust. 
If the government were capable of driving a bargain in such 
a case, they would, at least, desire to know the profits of the 
speculation. It is absurd to suppose, therefore, that those gen- 
tlemen who were appointed, not to purchase, but to appraise 
the ship, would put any other than a fair value upon her. 
They did undoubtedly appraise her at what they supposed she 
would have cost the United States if they had built her. It 
is not to be supposed that they allowed any thing for the ex- 
pense arising from extraordinary despatch, or the extraordi- 
nary price of materials and labour. We must, therefore, 
make an allowance for these circumstances. The result is as 
follows : 



i The only estimate of her cost, which we can now procure, confirms 
our calculations. In that estimate it will be perceived are included all the 
ordnance and stores, and all the expenditures for equipment and outfits then 
ascertained. Vide Appendix. No. fl. 



Estimate of the Hope. Ill 

The amount of the estimate of the Liberator * $230,570 97 

Add for articles discovered not to be in the inventory 

and afterwards allowed for, supposed! 3,000 00 

Extra price of materials and labour, 20 pr. ct. as above, 46,714 19 
Amount of kentledge afterwards sold to government,! 5,600 00 



Probable cost of the Liberator, as delivered by the 

houses, 285,885 16 

From the above we must deduct the difference between 

the expenses of the Liberator and the Hope, 8,417 78 



§277,46738 



For the ship Hope we have paid, exclusive of commissions, 

$399,321 28 
Deduct, as above, 277,467 3B 



$121,853 90 
Making one hundred and twenty-one thousand eight 

HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE DOLLARS AND NINETY CENTS, eX- 

clusive of commissions, more than this vessel ought to have 
cost !§ 

Enough has been said as to the moneys paid to Captain 
Chauncey. 

A word remains as to the ship-builders. We shall not 
treat the public with so little respect as to argue this matter 
at any length. 

* Appendix, No. 5. 

f This is as near as we can ascertain it, but may not be precisely accu- 
rate, 

| This is according- to statement handed by Capt. Earl. 

$ The statement which Mr. Bayard has made, respecting" the vouchers, 
bills of parcels, &c. together with his parade of calculations as to the actual 
expenditure for these ships, render it absolutely necessary for us to give 
the public some information in our possession, which has a material bearing- 
upon these points. It will not be expected, that we should apply, or if we 
did, that we should be successful, to the persons with whom contracts were 
made, for the particulars of discount or credit allowed to the houses ; still 
less that any information could be gained as to good bargains, profitable 
jobs, &c. If we had made such applications, we should not have blamed 



112 Shot Contract, fyc. 

The arbitrators say, that " no attempt was made to prove 
that any other ship-builders could have been procured to do 
the same for a less price." We reply, that no attempt was 



those gentlemen, who from motives of delicacy, chose to withhold infor- 
mation. 

Notwithstanding all this, we have heard enough to compel us to believe, 
that credits were given in many cases and upon heavy contracts, although 
the houses constantly declared to the deputies that they paid cash for every 
thing, and although this general declaration was confirmed by Mr. G. G. 
Rowland and Mr. Wm. Bayard under the strongest assurances to the coun- 
sel of the deputies, during the arbitration, that every thing had been paid 
for at the periods of the charges in their accounts. 

We know that credit was given by Messrs. Goodhue & Co. on their con- 
tract, (although we do not derive this information from those gentlemen 
themselves,) and that they have been but recently paid in full. 

The following statement, which can be verified by the oaths of several 
respectable gentlemen, may enable our readers to form some conception of 
the scenes which would be brought to light if this whole transaction were 
uncovered. 

The houses have charged the deputies g29,259 25 cents, for money paid 
Messrs. Nixon & Woodhull for shot. 

In the " statement of actual payments," up to 15th April, made 
by G. G. & S. Howland, shortly after Mr. Contostavlos' arrival, 
and which Mr. Bayard calls a " statement of expenditures," there 
is the following charge : 

"Nixon & Woodhull shot" 13,500 00 

The correspondent charge in the " statement of expenditures," 
without any heading, dated April 18th, furnished by Le Roy, 
Bayard & Co., stands thus : 

« Nixon & Woodhull shot" 13,500 00 

And in the annexed list of " estimated balances" is the follow- 
ing charge : 
« Nixon & Woodhull shot" 1,200 00 

In the account of Messrs. Rowlands, rendered in June, and 
headed " statement of actual payments," fyc. the charge stands 

thus : 

" Paid Nixon & Woodhull for shot and carting, $7,500, 

6,000. Balance 1,191 75" 14,691 75 

In that of Le Roy, Bayard & Co. rendered in June, it stands 
thus : 

" Nixon & Woodhull shot" 14,567 50 

« Nixon & Woodhull shot" 124- 25 



Shot Contract, tyc. 113 

made on the other side to support these charges, except hy the 
■ hip-builders themselves. They were the persons who judged 
their compensation to he reasonable. 



Some time in November, 1825, Messrs. Nixon & Woodhuil stopped pay- 
ment. A meeting of their creditors was called about the 1st of Decem- 
ber. Mr. G. G. How I present, and represented to the creditors 
that Nixon & Woodhuil had made an first "000 
dollars which was due on a shot contract, then, after paying- borrowed mo- 
i pay confidential-creditors, including- 5000 dollars which Mr. How- 
land said he had advanced to Nixon & Woodhuil, or one of them, to go into 
business, and did not expect to receive again, and which he would give up 
if the creditors would assent to his proposal, and which was as follows, 
viz. — Mr. Howland said, that N. & W. had a contract to furnish shot for 
certain ships which were to leave New-York in the spring ; that he, Mr. 
Howland, would furnish them with the means to complete the contract, and 
after paying himself the moneys advanced, would pay the profits to the 
creditors, if they would suffer Nixon & Woodhuil to go on and finish the 
contract ; that the profits would be as much as 6000 dollars, or thereabout , 
which would be cash on the delivery of the shot, which was to be com- 
pleted in February or March ; and that, if the creditors did not assent to 
this, he, Mr. Howland could sell the contract and put the profits in his own 
pocket. Mr. Nixon or Mr. Woodhuil, who was present at the same time, 
represented that these profits would probably be 10,000 dollars. 

The creditors assented to this proposal, and allowed N. &W. to complete 
the contract. Some time in March Mr. Howland being called on for the 
money to go to the creditors, said he could not pay them then, as Le Roy, 
Bayard & Co. had given notes for the money due to N. & W. at 60 or 90 
days, or some other period, and that he, Mr. Howland, could not pay until 
their notes were paid. At the end of this period, Mr. Howland being called 
on again, said he was engaged in an arbitration (supposed to be that res- 
pecting the Greek frigates) and would do nothing about the business until 
that should be finished. After the arbitration payment was still delayed ; 
and at a meeting of the creditors in September last, Mr. Howland proposed to 
pay the confidential creditors 62£ cents en the dollar, they giving N. &l W. 
a full discharge, and to pay himself G2* cents on the 5,000 dollars ; and 
if they did not do this, Mr. Howland said he would take the profits of the 
shot contract and pay his own debt of 5000 dollars, he Mr. H. declaring, 
that the shot contract was not included in the assignment by N- & W., and 
that he could do as he pleased with that. He afterwards told Mr. Russel, of 
1 lie house of Russel & Jacobus, as that gentleman has informed us he is 
willing to testify, that if the creditor- :iid not assent to his proposal, he would 
take the profits of the shot contract to himself. 

Mr. Howland also stated at the meeting in September, that the profits on 

V 



U4 Shot Contract, tyc. 

The arbitrators were bound to reject the evidence offered 
as the rule of compensation, it being monstrous. The coun- 
sel of the deputies believed the arbitrators competent judges 
on this point (two of them being merchants) and reposed 
themselves on their understandings, and consciences. It ap- 
peared to us, that it would be treating this evidence with too 
much respect to bring witnesses against it. 

Mr. Bayard says that these ships—both of them ! — (had 
he forgotten the letters of the houses on this subject ?.) — were 
launched in five months and three days after their commence* 
ment. So much the better for the builders. Fifty thousand 
dollars for their labour, and the exclusive use of their yards, 
&c. &c. for five months and three days — or, if we go back to 
the beginning of the contract, for six months ! Our readers 
may perhaps form some judgment on this subject, from the 
following facts, which we have upon such authority as pre- 
cludes all doubt of there being any substantial mistake. 

The ship Henri IVth was put on the same slip from which 
the Hope was previously launched. The same yard, black- 
smith's shop, and mould lofts, were used as for the Hope, 
The Henri IVth was on the stocks about six months. She was 



said contract would exceed 9,000 dollars, and Mr. Nixon has represented 
the same to be not less than 10,000 dollars. 

A part of the amount due these creditors from this shot contract has since 
been paid, and a part remains due, unless paid very recently. Mr. Wood- 
bull is Mr. Howland's brother-in-law. 

Interest was allowed by the arbitrators on all disbursements, and conse- 
quently on the profits of this contract, from November 1825. Ten thou- 
sand dollars profits on a contract but little exceeding 29,000 dollars ! ! !— 
Profits, too, which Mr. Howland could put in his own pocket by a sale of 
the contract ! 

Such is the fidelity with which these houses have watched the interest of 
their employers, " augmented, if possible, by their zeal for Greece." 

If these gentlemen can acquit themselves from the thousand dark suspi- 
cions which rush into the mind of every reader upon this statement, we 
will most cheerfully join in the verdict of their acquittal. But this can 
only be done by the production of the bills of parcels and the original (not 
the " duplicate") receipts, with competent evidence that they are genuine 
documents. We solemnly call upon these gentlemen for this evidence. If 
if be withheld, their plea of not guilty must be considered as withdrawn- 



Ship Henri IVih. — PoHcies of Insurance. 415 

a vessel of 500 tons, carpenters' measurement. Messrs. Bergh 
& Co. were at the trouble of procuring all the timber, plank, 
copper bolts to fasten the ship, all the iron bolts, all the masts 
and yards, and they paid for all the labour. Their compensation 
was $16,800. It will be said that there was a great difference 
in the tonnage of the two ships: but their services were exclu- 
sively devoted to the Henri IVth as well as to the Hope. 
There was in truth, no very material difference between thq 
two cases, except in one circumstance, which we have omit- 
ted. The materials and labour above mentioned, were paid 
for by Messrs. Bergh &t Co. out of their own pockets, and 
included in the $16,800. 

To this we will only add, that Mr. Eckford, whose profes- 
sional reputation is certainly not surpassed in this country, 
was employed by the government to superintend the building 
of the Ohio, and was thus employed two years. He perform- 
ed all the services for that ship, which were performed for the 
Greek ships by the ship-builders and Capt. Chauncey, (with 
the single exception of furnishing the yard,) and his compen- 
sation was $2000 per annum. His services for two years, 
may perhaps be thought equal to those of Smith h Demon, or 
Christian Bergh &i Co. for six months, although these gentle- 
men were exclusively devoted to one object. 

With regard to the policies of insurance, which Mr. Cou- 
tostavlos so often called for, and which were not produced, 
and on which the premiums were allowed, nothing is said by 
the arbitrators, except that without the slightest explanation, 
after a computation of the extra expenses of the frigates, they 
say, " to which extra charges may be added $4741 13, paid 
for insurance ;"* and except also, that in that part of their 
Reportf in which they are speaking more particularly of their 
services, they say that ten or twelve different policies, in va- 
rious offices, covering the ships, &c, were transferred to them, 
On this subject, even Mr. Bayard is silent. 

We have not time to examine at large the subject of the 
shot lost on board the schooner Exchange. It will be seen. 

Report, p. 66. f Ibid. p. 7. 



116 Shot Contract. 

by an examination of Mr. Contostavlos' Narrative,* that the 
charge made by him is not answered by Mr. Bayard. 

These shot were included in the accounts of the houses, and 
they never gave any information of their loss. This fact was 
discovered by Mr. Contostavlos during the arbitration. This 
is not denied by Mr. Bayard. General Mason had delivered 
the shot to Mr. Wallace, (who was to superintend their ship- 
ment as the agent of the houses,) and had drawn on the houses 
for the amount thereof, some time previous to the shipment. 
This is not denied by Mr. Bayard. Where was the difficulty 
of insuring " by a vessel or vessels ?" 

The only material remaining allegations of Mr. Contos- 
tavlos are, that Mr. Wallace's letter advising of the shipment, 
was alleged to be lost ;— that Gen. Mason's correspondence 
with the houses was called for, and after much delay, some 
letters from him were produced, which did not relate to the 
shot, but referred to other letters, which were declared to be 
lost or mislaid ; — and that, under these striking circumstances, 
a proposal by Mr. Contostavlos, that a statement to be made 
by General Mason on the subject, should be received in evi- 
dence, (it being impossible to procure his attendance,) was 
rejected. Mr. Bayard's only answer to all this is — " It is said 
" that General Mason's letters on the subject of this shipment, 
" were called for, and not produced. The allegation is false: 
" every letter of that gentleman, which could be found, was 
" produced ; and it is evident that none of them could speak 
" of any particular shipment made by Mr. Wallace, so as to 
" have furnished us with the means of making insurance." 
Mr. Bayard's apparent contradiction of Mr. Contostavlos 
appears, on a second view, not to be such. 

The allegation made by Mr. Contostavlos was, that the 
correspondence of General Mason was called for, and not 
produced. This is not denied. The copies of Gen. Mason's 
letters, which we might have procured from him, and pro- 
duced in evidence, with the consent of the opposite party, 
would have furnished the desired information. The bouses 

* Report, p. 43, 4 



Letter of the 1 bth of April. 1 J 7 

chose then, as Mr. Bayard does now, that we should rest sa- 
tisfied with their declarations as to what these letters did not 
contain. 

What the arbitrators ought to have decided on this point, 
considering the defectiveness of the evidence before them, is 
a point which we do not mean to discuss; but this part of the 
transaction, in so far as it implicates the houses, is of the most 
serious import. 

The regular order of discussion would perhaps require us 
to introduce here the questions respecting the alleged loss of 
the Messrs. Howland of £7,500 in the hands of Mr. Samuel 
Williams, and respecting the damages on the protested bills ; 
but we shall reserve these topics for future consideration. 

There is no single document relating to this controversy; 
more important than the letter of the houses of the 1 5th of 
April.* We do not intend to enter into an argument as to 
the right to rescind the contract, and do not introduce this 
letter with that view ; but solely on account of its important 
bearing in respect to the Report of the arbitrators, and the 
integrity and fidelity of the houses. But we cannot entirely 
pass over the very extraordinary statement of the arbitrators 
on this question of rescinding the contract. They state,f that 
" the counsel for the Deputies expressly admitted, at this point 
of the evidence," (long before the counsel of the Deputies 
opened,) " to the arbitrators and the opposing counsel, that 
the Deputies were chargeable for the actual fair and reason- 
able cost of the frigates." And the counsel of the houses 
express their clear recollection of this admission. Our re- 
collection is equally clear, and precisely the reverse of 
this. The admission which was made, was solely in reference 
to the question of building vessels of a larger size than the 
Deputies had intended and ordered : and even that admission, 
having been made in mistake, was afterwards rejected. 

The arbitrators and the counsel, or we, are under a mis- 
take ; and this must be decided according to the probabilities 

Appendix. No. 3. f Report, p. i 



118 Right to rescind the Contract. 

arising out of the case. When the arbitrators come to assign 
the reasons of their Report on this question of rescinding the 
contract,* (which they do at great length,) they repeat this 
alleged positive admission, which, if it had existed, would 
have saved the necessity of all argument on the point. And 
what is not a little strange, they lay great stress upon the im- 
plied election of the Deputies to affirm the contract arising 
out of their non-election, within a reasonable time to rescind 
it. Nay, more ; — so urgent are the arbitrators to press this 
point, and to strengthen the presumption arising from lapse of 
time, that, after admitting the right of the Deputies to a rea- 
sonable time to ascertain the truth of the information respect- 
ing the legality of the enterprise, they straightway take for 
granted and assert, what is not true, that Mr. Contostavlos 
consulted counsel immediately after his arrival in April. They 
add, that " no intimation to rescind the contract was ever 
given by him, although he knew that the houses were then at 
work in finishing the ships, and doing other acts in reference 
to that contract." How does the character of advocate con- 
stantly peer through the gown of the arbitrator ? The truth 
is, that Mr. Contostavlos did not consult counsel until the pe- 
riod when a negotiation was opened for an arbitration : and 
that the very moment he was made acquainted with his right 
to rescind the contract, he made use of it to compel the parties 
to an arbitration. 

The accounts of the houses siiow that nothing, or next to 
nothing, was done " towards finishing the ships," after Mr. 
Contostavlos' arrival. Small sums are added to their accounts 
between April and June, but we believe exclusively on ac- 
count of previous contracts. We do not believe that a day's 
labour was done upon the ships after Mr. Contostavlos' arrival. 

If the admission imputed to the counsel of the Deputies by 
the arbitrators, and specially to Mr. Duer, by the counsel of 
the houses, had been made, why did not the arbitrators stop 
Mr. R. Sedgwick in his opening of the cause, when he 
stated the right of the Deputies to rescind the contract ? 

Report, p. 51, 2 3- 



Right to rescind the Contract. Hi) 

That this " singular claim" was brought forward by that 
gentleman, is admitted by the counsel of the houses ; and 
though this circumstance " struck" them " with surprise," it 
is omitted by the arbitrators in their statement of his opening. 
We ask still more emphatically, if this alleged admission was 
made, why, after the evidence was closed, the arbitrators 
"were unwilling to express any opinion preliminarily" upon 
this point of rescinding the contract, and therefore decided 
that the privilege of the closing argument should be determin- 
ed " by lot?" We ask still further, why the arbitrators per- 
mitted an argument on this point when the cause was finally 
summed up ? and why it did not occur to them, or the coun- 
sel of the houses, who elaborately argued this point, to avail 
themselves of an admission which necessarily precluded all 
argument ? 

We now come to the letter of the 15th of April. This 
letter is filled with matter which an apologist of the houses 
would wish to have suppressed. The statement as to the 
building of ships for Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and Brazil,* 
and fifteen frigates for the United States, which will be here- 
after examined, if not intimately connected with the merits of 
the disputed questions, had an obvious tendency to awaken 
suspicion as to the houses, and to confirm the general allega- 
tions made by Mr. Contostavlos of their unfairness and un- 
truth. The declaration that the ships could not be got ready 
for sea in less than six months, was of still greater importance. 
But that part of the letter which relates to the illegality of the 
enterprise, of itself gave a character to the whole controvers\\ 
It was this which gave us the right to rescind the contract 
with the houses, and which consequently gave us the power 
of dictating equitable terms of compromise. The false repre- 
sentation upon this point, was also considered by us as deci- 
sive upon the question of commissions, and as repelling any 
pretence of right to any commissions whatever. 

That our readers may perfectly understand this passage of 
the letter, it is necessary to refer to the article of instructions 
to which it particularly relates. 

Appendix, No. ". 



120 Letter of the 16th of April. 

Additional Article. {Translation.) 
" It is necessary that the two houses to whom General Lal- 
" lemand will be addressed, be assured in the most positive 
" manner, that the government of the United States will per- 
" mit the free departure of the two frigates, as well as the 
" enrolment of the men necessary to navigate them ; and that 
" this operation, so important for the salvation of the coun- 
" try, will encounter no obstacle, (ne rencontrera aucun ob- 
" stacle,) either in the will of the government, or in the laws 
" of the United States, (ni dans la volonte du gouvernement, 
" ni dans les lois des Etats Unis.") 

We take the liberty to offer this translation, without further 
remark, in the place of that of the opposite counsel, who 
found an argument upon the words which they employ, " that 
" this operation will meet no opposition from the government 
" or the laws of the United States." 

The language of the Deputies appears to us perfectly plain. 
The letter of the houses seems to be equally clear and unam- 
biguous. We understand them to assert, that there was no 
law to forbid the building of the ships ; but that, nevertheless, 
" to avoid all complaint from the governments of Europe," 
(which might possibly give rise to an interference on the part 
of our government,) " it would be proper to avoid a useless 
publicity;" and that for the same reason, viz. " to avoid all 
complaint from the governments of Europe," they would give 
it to be understood that they were building the ships for Peru, 
and " have their armament put on board as cargo." 

We beg our readers, before they proceed, to look at the let- 
ter itself,* a-nd see whether it be susceptible of any other con- 
struction. If this be the true construction, then the houses de- 
ceived the Deputies in regard to the law, and employed their 
funds at an imminent hazard in direct violation of their instruc- 
tions. 

If this be so, can any body doubt that within a reasonable 
time after we discovered what the facts were, we had a right 
to recover back our money ? and if we preferred to recover 
the ships themselves, is it not plain that such flagrant ill faith 

* Am". No. 3. 



Letter of ike \btli April not mentioned by the Arbitrators. 121 

would materially affect the question of commissions ? It is 
unnecessary to waste time in arguing whether it did not lite- 
rally annihilate all rightful claim to commissions. 

The arbitrators have professed to state the substance of the 
opening of the counsel for the Deputies. But they have for- 
gotten to mention that that counsel distinctly slated this letter 
and the foregoing article of instructions, as the very founda- 
tion of the right to rescind the contract, which is admitted 
by Messrs. Emmet & Ogden. The arbitrators have spoken 
of the right to rescind the contract as " a cardinal point of the 
counsel of the Deputies." They have not forgotten the 
complaint with respect to closed doors ; and but for the viola- 
tion of instructions of which this letter was the principal aggra- 
vation, and the most striking evidence, the doors would never 
have been closed. 

They have published many other letters entire, but in a re- 
port of the evidence in the cause, they have not even alluded to 
this. How shall we account for this f It is impossible it should 
have been forgotten. We shall now see how it was evaded. 
For this purpose it was necessary to give a new construction, 
and one which appears to us quite forced and unnatural, of 
the article of instructions from the Deputies which we have 
already quoted. They infer from " the language and spirit of 
that article" that the Deputies meant that the agents 
should <; ascertain unequivocally that our government would 
refrain from any exertion of authority and secretly favour the 
enterprise." - But this was not enough for the defence of the 
houses ; it was necessary to show that they had done this, 
which the arbitrators proceed to assert or imply, though with- 
out the least reason or evidence as we have already stated, and 
as will hereafter be more fully shown. Suppose it possible 
for a moment that the arbitrators were wrong and the houses 
right, in the construction which they put upon the article in 
question, when they said u there was no law to forbid the building 
of the ships." Suppose the Deputies to have meant what they 
*aid when they inquired about " tht laws of the U. States. 11 It 
would seem reasonable that the ordinary meaning of words 
should be attributed to the language of the Deputies, espe* 

Q 



122 Letter of Messrs. Emmet and Ogdeu. 

cially when it is considered that any other meaning is very ina- 
dequate to the purpose for which they were used. 

But if the construction of the arbitrators had on the whole 
been the most reasonable, it would have been scarcely less 
necessary in fairness to state the opposite hypothesis, and the 
evidence connected with it ; and thus submit the whole mat- 
ter fairly to the judgment of the public. > 

We would gladly have dismissed this subject here, thinking 
the above letter its own sufficient commentary, and knowing 
that the incredulity of those who were fairly led to infer from 
the Report of the Arbitrators that there was no such letter in 
existence, (for such we understand there were,) must have been 
satisfied by the " Exposition" of Mr Bayard. But the letter 
of Messrs. Emmet and Ogden, and the exposition of Mr. Baj^- 
ard require and shall receive a satisfactory answer. 

The first inquiry is. what did the Deputies mean when they 
instructed the houses before executing their orders to ascer- 
tain " that the operation would not encounter any obstacle 
either in the will of the government or in the laws of the 
United States ? 

Let us place ourselves for a moment in their situation. 

They were strangers to our country, to our language, and 
to the particulars of our code of laws. But they knew that 
this was a republican government, emphatically a government 
of laws, and that the general powers of the President must be f 
in most cases, limited and directed by positive law. Under 
these circumstances, they framed their instructions, and the 
inquiry which they contain, in such a manner as to embrace 
the whole subject. What they desired to know, and what the 
nature of the case made it necessary they should know was. 
whether the government of the United States, or any person 
acting under their laws, would, or. could, defeat the enterprise: 
and they used the plainest and most obvious language to eli- 
cit this information. 

The counse* argue thus. The houses were ordered to as- 
certain that the government " would permit the sailing of the 
frigates," he. Therefore, they knew " the government mkrhf 



Discussion of the Act of Congress,. 128 

legally refuse to permit the sailing," &c. " Therefore, they 
knew that those acts were contrary to our laws." 

We could hardly help smiling at this argument, if we did 
not know the respectable quarter from whence it came. Ad- 
mitting it to be unanswerable, it would be to little purpose ; 
for it matters not what the deputies knew of the law so long 
as they were ignorant that its provisions were such as to ren- 
der it impossible that the houses should comply with the con- 
ditions upon which they were to purchase or build the ships. 
Bui we cannot admit that this argument proves any thing. It 
is certain that the deputies did not reason as the counsel have 
done. They must have understood by the permission of 
government, such a permission as would be effectual, one ecjui 
valent to the license of a sovereign power, and not one which 
could be rendered nugatory by any wretch who should choose 
to file an information against the ships. Therefore, they could 
not have known of the existence of the law, which rendered 
it impossible, as will be seen hereafter, for the government to 
gire such a permission. 

If any thing more were necessary to show that the depu- 
ties were ignorant of the law, it may be observed, that the 
article of instructions in question seems to be added merely 
out of abundant caution ; and that it is taken for granted, 
throughout the previous articles, that the expedition was not 
forbidden by our laws. One of the articles directs, that an 
application should first be made to purchase the ships from 
our government: another requires, that the officers shall take 
an oath here as to the faithful discharge of their duty : an- 
other declares, that the officers who should go out in the ships, 
and who were to receive commissions through the houses and 
General Lallemand, on entering into the Greek service, would 
necessarily be under Greek commanders." 

We come now to the question, whether the houses, to use 
the language of Mr. Contostavlos, " asserted in the most po- 
sitive manner, that no law of the United States would be vio- 
lated, and no risk incurred, by the building and equipment of 

* Report, p. 9. 



124 Discussion of the Act of Congress 

these frigates ?" and whether they were guilty of wilful rnis= 
representation in so doing ? 

"Although there is no law which forbids the building of ships, 
" nevertheless, to avoid all complaint from the governments 
" of Europe, it is proper to avoid a useless publicity, and we 
" will give it to be understood, that we are building for the 
" government of Peru* In sending the ships to sea, their 
" armament will be put on board as cargo. Therk will re 

" NO DIFFICULTY." 

The counsel of the houses, after expressing their regret 
that the arbitrators had omitted this letter, say, " if you had 
set forth that letter, you should also, in justice to the houses, 
have stated the act to which it referred, and which shows, that 
every part of the paragraph is accurately true." An exami- 
nation of the act will make the case appear much worse. 

The first and second sections of the act of Congress for- 
bid, under heavy penalties of fine and imprisonment, the ac- 
ceptance of any commission, or any enlistment to serve against 
any country with which the United States are at peace. 

The third section is as follows : 

" If any person shall, within the limits of the United States, fit 
" out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to befitted 
" out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing- 
"fitting out and arming of any ship or vessel, with intent that such 
" ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign 
(i prince or state, or of any colony, district or people, to cruise or 
" commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or people, with 
< c whom the United States are at peace, or shall issue or deliver a 
«' commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United 
" States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she may be em- 
" ployed as aforesaid, every person so offending shall be deemed 
« guilty of a high misdemeanour , and shall be fined not more 
" than ten thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than three 
cc years ; and every such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel, 
" and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition. 
" and stores, which may have been procured for the building and 
" equipment thereof shall be forfeited, ; one half to the use of the 
" informer, and the other half to the use of the United States." 

The tenth section directs, that the owners of any armec^ 



Discussion of the Act of Congress. 12 ij 

ship, sailing out of the United States, shall enter into bonds 
with sufficient sureties, prior to cleaning out such vessel, in 
double her value and that of her armament, &,c, ; that she shall 
not be employed by such owners to commit hostilities against 
the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or 
people.* 

The eleventh section is as follows : 

" The collectors of the customs are hereby respectively autho- 
:: rized and required to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike 
: purposes, and about to depart from the United States, of which 
" the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war. 
" when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstan- 
; ' ces, shall render it probable that such vessel is intended to be 
" employed by the owner or owners to cruise or commit hostilities 
" upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or 
• : state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the Uni- 
'■'• ted States are at peace, until the decision of the President be had 
< c thereon, or until the owner or owners shall give such bond and 
:c security as i equired of the owners of armed ships by the pre- 
11 ceding section of this act."| 

Our readers are now fully prepared to appreciate the con- 
struction which Mr. Bayard and his counsel put upon the 
letter under consideration. 

We may safely appeal to every honest merchant (for none 
such could doubt his obligation to make a most full and frank 
communication in such a case) whether, if he had been writ- 
ing to a foreigner, in such circumstances, in regard to the 
foregoing law, he could possibly have written as the houses 
have done ? Whether his conscience would have been satis- 

: It was under this section that Mr. Contostavlos was compelled, in a 
land of strangers, to find a bond with sufficient sureties in the penal sum of 
600,000 dollars. The difficulty of furnishing- this neutrality bond, which 
it was the imperative duty of the houses to furnish, and the equally im- 
perative duty of the arbitrators to require from them, was so great, that it 
threatened, at one time, to become an insurmountable obstacle to the de- 
parture of the Hope. It is painful to contemplate the responsibility which 
the arbitrators thus took upon themselves, and the dreadful peril in which 
the enterprise was thus involved. 

•lessrs. Emmet & Ogden plainly intimate, that by putting the arma- 
ment on board a c carqro. the transaction would have been rendered lesral. 



126 Mr. Bayard's Explanation, 

fied with the nice distinctions of the counsel ? Whether he 
would have said, that there was no law to forbid the building 
of the ships, when the law forbade, under the penalty of for- 
feiture, being " concerned in the furnishing or fitting out" — 
the intent being the same in oth cases Whether he could 
have consented to represent that the armament might lawfully 
go out as cargo ?* and if so, whether he would have consi- 
dered such a representation a very " clear intimation," " that 
despatching such vessels fitted out and armed, would be ille- 
gal" ? In short, whether he would have considered the simple 
declaration, that the " armament would appear as cargo" a suf- 
ficient disclosure of all the obstacles which the " operation" 
might " encounter in the laws of the United States" f 

Our readers must be already tolerably well acquainted with 
Mr. B yard's interpretation of this famous letter. We have 
already, in discussing another topic, made a considerable ab- 
stract from this part of the Exposition, which it is unnecessary 
to repeat. 

The substance of Mr. Bayard's explanation is, that the 
Greek deputies were desirous of ascertaining the " feelings 
and intentions of our government respecting building of ship* 
for their naval service ; that it would have sufficed to inform 
them, that ships of war were building in all quarters of the 
union, and that our government had never seen fit to interfere. 
But that Gen. Lallemand, not choosing to rest satisfied with 
il the presumptions afforded by passing occurrences," address- 
ed himself, before the deputies were written to, to higher 
sources of information, and ascertained, " by personal inqui- 
ries, that the operation about to be undertaken would meet 
no opposition from the government or the laws of the United 
States:' 

The result of this negotiation, together with an opinion 
which Mr. Bayard had formed upon an informal conversation 
with counsel, that the armament might go out as cargo as 
matter of right, was the substance of the information to the 
deputies in the letter of the 15th of April. 

* Vide 11th section of the law authorizing the collector to detain the 
vessel, if her cargo shall consist principally of munitions of war, fc<\ 



Mr. Bayard's Explanation. 127 

u This/' says Mr. Bayard, " is the substance of our infor- 
mation to the deputies ; from which it will be seen, that so far 
from asserting ' in the most positive manner, that no law of 
the United States would be violated and no risk incurred by 
the building and equipment of these frigates for the aid of 
Greece,' we confined ourselves to the security of the depu- 
ties in building, suggesting the shipment of the armament as 
cargo ; thus manifesting our apprehension of some risk in thje 
actual equipment of these powerful ships in our ports." 

This explanation appears in itself to us absurd and incredi- 
ble ; but if to any it wears the air of plausibility, we refer 
again to the indubitable evidence of Gen. Lallemand himself, 
by which it appears that Mr. Bayard's interpretation rests 
altogether upon a transaction wholly fictitious. 

We would beg leave to suggest to the ingenious author of 
Mr. Bayard's Exposition, that before he appears again in de- 
fence of the houses, he will do well to examine all the docu- 
ments relating to the subject, and thus, without trespassing 
unnecessarily upon them, provide sufficient scope for his inge- 
nuity and imagination. 

It will not be thought necessary after this to offer a serious 
reply to the argument of the counsel of the houses upon this 
point. Their distinctions between " legal and practical imped- 
iments," between the legality of the building of the ships, and 
the illegality of their equipment, appear to us too shadowy and 
refined to afford a sheltering place for the veracity of the 
houses.* But we are not ambitious of dividing with Mr. 
Bayard the honour of demolishing the defence they had set up 
for him. He has done it so effectually as to leave not a wreck 
behind. 

' Judge Livingston's authoriiy is introduced by the counsel to show that 
the law did not forbid the building- of the ships. It did not appear in the 
<ase refered to, that the ships were built with foreign funds, nor even with 
the intent that they should be employed to commit hostilities against Spain: 
consequently the case had no application to the one under consideration. 
This appears by a letter of Mr. Adams then secretary of State, to the Span 
ish minister. dp<rrl Mav, ?!rh 1818. 



128 Illegality of the Transaction set up by the Houses. 

Our readers will now judge whether Mr. Contostavlos spoke 
truly when he said that the letter of the 15th of April would 
-" fix an indelible stain upon the integrity of the houses." 

The representation in the letter of the 15th of April, as to 
the legality of the enterprise, stands in striking contrast with 
their subsequent assertion of its illegality. To the allegation 
of Mr. Contostavlos in his Narrative, that the houses had set 
up the " known illegality of the transaction as a defence 
against the claim of the Deputies." Mr. Bayard replies : 
c * although Mr. Contostavlos avers that he has in his possession 
letters from the two houses furnishing conclusive evidence 
of the truth of this charge, I aver it to be false in the letter as 
well as the spirit. The letters" (Mr. Contostavlos refers to 
but one,) " alluded to are no doubt those which were written 
to the Messrs. Ricardos." 

There is one feature in this gentleman's defence which 
strikes us as peculiar to himself. The boldness of his asser- 
tions seems always to be directly proportioned to the strength 
and clearness of the evidence to which they are opposed. 
Mr. Contostavlos refers to the letters of the houses in sup- 
port of his charges, and in respect to that now under consid- 
eration he refers to their letter to Messrs. J. & S. Ricardo, of 
the 15th of February. Let us now see whether that letter 
does not fully sustain this charge, and afford the strongest 
confirmation of the Narrative of Mr. Contostavlos. 

The letter of the Messrs. Ricardos to which that of the 15th 
of February is an answer, is totally misrepresented by Mr. 
Bayard. He says " a letter was received from Messrs. Ricar- 
" dos, stating that the cause of Greece assumed a desponding 
" aspect, and that the Deputies being about to send an agent 
" to this country, they hoped that we would consider these 
:< vessels as the property of the subscribers to the Greek loan. 
" who had lost severely — that the funds received for their 
" building were provided by them — (Messrs. Ricardos,) and 
" that they looked to the United States to protect their in- 
(: tercsts." 

Mr. Bayard adds, " in our answer we accordingly informed 
" Messrs. Ricardos that if they attempted to interfere, the 



Iticardos* letter of the \Ath December. 129 

,£ vessels would be seized. It will thus be perceived that the 
" illegality of the transaction was not set up against the claim 
" of the Deputies, but to preserve and protect their claim." 

Let the letter of Messrs. Ricardo and that of the houses 
speak for themselves. The Messrs. Ricardo, in their letter 
of the 14th of December, express their " unqualified astonish^ 
ment at the magnitude of the sum" required, according to the 
information communicated by the houses in their letter to the 
Deputies of the 3 1st of October, and complain in strong 
terms, that the houses had so long kept the Deputies in igno- 
rance of the cost of the ships ; and they say that having been 
contractors for the Greek loan, of which they and their friends 
were large holders, they " cannot calmly look on and see so 
" extravagant and wasteful an expenditure of the funds with- 
" out expressing their disapprobation." They then proceed, "we 
u understand, that one of the Deputies proposes departing for 
" America, with a view to make some arrangements relative to 
" the frigates ; we know not what his intentions may be, but 
" as we have furnished all the funds for their construction, and 
" have therefore some claim on them which the present state 
"of affairs in Greece, and the probability of their being sub- 
" dued by the enemy warrants us in endeavouring to enforce * 
" we trust that no plan for their disposal at a heavy loss will be 
" entered into without our sanction, and we are satisfied that in 
u the situation in w T hich we stand, you will see the propriety 
" of this request. Any mode of making them available for 
u the service of Greece by sending them there, will meet with our 
il concurrence. We are, however, of opinion, that the first 
'- step to pursue will be to complete the building and launch 
" them, for which the funds you already have will no doubt 
£: be sufficient. We can then consult with our friends here, 
" and if the state of affairs in Greece will warrant it, we shall 
c; no doubt be able to make arrangements for the armament 
" and equipment." Thus it will be seen that a request that 
no plan for the disposal of these ships at a heavy loss might 
be entered into without the sanction of Messrs. Ricardo, ac- 
companied with a declaration of their concurrence in any 
mode by which they might be made available to Greece, is 

R 



130 Illegality of the Transaction set up by the Houses. 

with characteristic ease converted by Mr. Bayard into a 
threat to interfere with the vessels ; and this threat was con- 
sidered so alarming that it was necessary, forthwith, to pro- 
tect the " claim of the Deputies" against it. 

In answer to the above letter, the houses, after making ex- 
planations as to the cost of the frigates, say, they are pleased 
that one of the deputies is coming out to this country ; that if 
permitted by them, they will furnish minute accounts of every 
thing to the Ricardos ; but that they cannot imagine^ what 
right the subscribers to a loan have to inquire into the expen- 
ditures made by the government contracting the loan ; and 
that the Ricardos are known to them only as the bankers of 
the deputies. They then add, " we must repeat, that as to the 
" ships we know only the deputies in the business, and even the 
" Deputies cannot obtain possession of the vessels without our 
" consent ; for should an effort be made to seize them, they at 
" once become the property of our government, after our de- 
" mands are setteld. 

" Should you feel however, a right to the avails of these 
u ships, in the event of their being r< sold, and will legally es- 
" tablish such a claim a regard to justice would naturally in- 
c * duce us to do all in our power to promote your interest. 
" We trust that no obstacles will oppose their departure, &c.'' 
It appears by the foregoing letter, that so far were the houses 
from protecting the ships against the claim of the Ricardos, 
that they were very willing, in the event of the re-sale of the 
ships, (the only event in which the Messrs. Ricardo sought 
to interpose their claims,) after providing for themselves, to 
promote to the utmost of their power, the interest of the Messrs. 
Ricardo. The houses spoke of the right of the deputies to get 
possession of the ships, and against that right they did set up 
the claim of illegality. It would, perhaps, have required more 
nerve to have made this communication directly to the deputies. 
If Mr. Contostavlos' statement was defective, it was so rather 
by reason of mildness than severity ; for he spoke only of their 
setting up the illegality of the transaction against the claims 
of the deputies ; and said nothing as to their gross misrepresen- 
tations ef the law. There was an adequate motive for this d* 5 



Closed Doors. 131 

ception. If the law, which had been at first entirely concealed, 
had been fairly disclosed at this period, it would have furnish- 
ed an instrument of redress against the houses. 

Our readers will now see with what truth and modesty 
Mr. Bayard has preferred charges of falsehood, founded on 
what appears to us, the plain and inevitable construction of 
the letter of the houses ; and this may help them to decide what 
respect is due to his representations, as to the verbal commu- 
nications on this subject, which passed between him and Mr. 
Contostavlos. 

Before we entirely dismiss this topic of the illegality of the 
enterprise, we feel ourselves compelled, though with regret, to 
notice a very painful part of this transaction — the closing of 
the doors by the arbitrators. 

These gentlemen, after assigning the reasons of their formal 
decision on this subject, say, "that in truth our meetings had 
never been made public ; and that several gentlemen were in- 
troduced by the respective counsel on both sides, by special 
permission of the arbitrators." This is a mistake. During 
the argument of one of the counsel of the houses, a note was 
received from Mr. George Brinckerhoff, requesting to be pre- 
sent. As soon as it was read, Mr. Duer remarked, that we 
certainly considered the arbitration open to the admission of all 
respectable persons. To this no reply was made. And we 
certainly never requested the permission of the arbitrators to 
introduce any individual, until after their formal decision that 
the doors should be closed. Several other gentlemen besides 
Mr. Brinckerhoff, did attend the hearing, but he alone, as far 
as we know, under a special permission. Reasons certainly 
were not wanting why the houses should wish the protection 
of closed doors. The arbitrators feared the officers of the go- 
vernment, and common informers too ! So far as these appre- 
hensions went, the parties might have been permitted to de- 
cide. The houses could not avail themselves of these, because 
they had secured the operation against these sources of dan- 
ger : and it was our belief, that so far as these considerations 
went, the publicity of the transaction could not be increased. 
l>iit the arbitrators thought, that " if the government had 



132 Charge of Perjury against Mr. Contostavlos, 

winked at the proceeding, and lent their indirect aid to the 
enterprise, it would be ungrateful and dishonourable in the 
parties for whose benefit it was intended, to expose the con- 
duct of the administration, and that it was a delicate question 
as between our government and foreign nations." 

Our readers have already had a surfeit of this delicacy to- 
wards the government. Besides, we requested in vain that 
the doors might be opened, after the discussion on the ques- 
tion of rescinding the contract and of the illegality of the 
enterprise should be closed. We did not insist that the dis- 
cussion should be public, as the arbitrators seem to represent, 
Solely because the counsel for the houses had assailed the cha- 
racter and conduct of Mr. Contostavlos. We expressed a 
wish to have the same privilege which the opposite counsel 
had enjoyed, that of making known to the community our 
views of the case : and it was no satisfaction for the loss of 
this privilege then, nor is it any answer to our complaint now, 
that " about as many persons attended during the argument 
of Mr. Duer, as at any former period." Such were the 
impressions produced in our minds by this decision of the 
arbitrators, that we thought of abandoning the arbitration, and 
it was not until after a long and painful deliberation on the 
subject, that we could persuade ourselves to proceed with it. 

Mr. Bayard's pamphlet is in the main not wanting in de- 
corum of phraseology ; but on the topic of falsehood, which 
called for most reserve, he observes no limits of abuse. For 
this, however, he had some apology. Unless he could con- 
vict Mr. Contostavlos of falsehood in regard to all the mate- 
rial allegations of his Narrative, he could not hope to escape 
Universal reproach. This he has attempted with regard to 
many of these allegations, though without so much discrimi- 
nation as might have been expected from so ingenious a wri- 
ter; for he seems to have opposed his own veracity, with 
ehtire confidence, not only to that of Mr. Contostavlos, but to 
a the original and authentic letters and documents" by which 
tfcat gentleman truly declared that every part of his Narrative 
could be substantiated. The apology we have suggested for 



Charge of Perjury against Mr. Contostavlos- 133 

Mr. Bayard, arises out of the urgent necessity of the case* 
Perhaps it might not have been thought strange that Mr. Bay- 
ard, who had promised to give out " that the ships were build- 
ing for Peru," should undertake to moralise, with such ele- 
gant and facetious gaiety, about Mr. H. D. Sedgwick's 
apology for Mr. Contostavlos. But it was not to be expect- 
ed, even from him, that he would venture to prefer against Mr. 
Contostavlos the charge of perjury. We hope that our read- 
ers will consider the apprehension that our silence might be 
misconstrued, a sufficient apology for replying to this charge. 
We shall do it with all possible brevity. 

As appears by the Report of the arbitrators,* (which is suffi- 
ciently accurate for the purposes of the present discussion, 
with a single exception hereafter noticed,) Mr. Contostavlos 
testified, " that he arrived in London on the 28th or 29th of 
" January, 1826. That the Deputies informed him that they 
" had only about £250,000 in scripts, worth about £50,000 
" sterling. They said they were dissatisfied with the expen- 
M ditures here. They ordered Ricardo to accept no more 
" bills, and they gave him positive instructions to that effect. 
11 On cross-examination, he was asked how he could reconcile 
u the testimony now given by him, with the statement made to 
" General Lallemand and the two houses on his arrival here. 
" With much embarrassment he admitted that the statement 
" he then made to General Lallemand and the houses was 
" untrue ; and he said he was induced to make such false 
" statement, because he thought it would promote the object 
;'• of his mission." 

The arbitrators seem to take for granted, as the counsel of 
the houses, or rather the senior counsel, (for he alone speaks 
on this subject,) certainly does, that Mr. Contostavlos testified 
truly. 

Let us now examine the evidence which Mr. Bayard brings 
forward to support his charge of perjury. It consists of a 
letter of Messrs.f Ricardo, dated March 2d, 1826, to Messrs. 
Baring, Brothers & Co., and of two letters addressed by the 

nort, p. 35. -f Exposition, p. 31. 



134 Charge of Perjury against Mr. Contostavlos. 

Deputies to the houses, one on the 28th of March, the other ou 
the 6th of April. The only material allegation in the first 
letter is, that the Messrs. Ricardo had no funds then in their 
hands at the disposal of the Deputies. Thus their having no 
funds in their hands in March, proves that Mr. Contostavlos 
perjured himself, when he swore that the Deputies themselves 
had funds in their hands, consisting of scripts, in January. 

The letters of the Deputies must, to every intelligent 
reader, afford a strong confirmation of Mr. Contostavlos' Nar- 
rative. They held out at that critical period there, as Mr. 
Contostavlos did here, the language of conciliation. That 
the impressions and conduct of the Deputies were what Mr. 
Contostavlos has represented them to be, when they were first 
apprised of the enormous cost of the frigates, and when the 
first protested bills reached them, no man can doubt, after 
reading the extracts from their letters, and those of Messrs. 
Ricardo, which we have before quoted. In their letter of the 
28th of. March, they say — " If the frightful distress which 
" exists in the commerce of this capital, had not thrown us 
" into difficulties, we should long since have taken the neces- 
" sary measures to discharge an obligation for an object of 
" such vast importance." This is the only expression in both 
these letters, introduced with so much parade, which, by any 
torture whatever, can be in the slightest degree opposed to 
Mr. Contostavlos' statement or oath. And yet this expression 
certainly implies that they were then in possession of means, 
which the existing state of commercial distress alone prevent- 
ed them from employing. This was not the period for crimi- 
nation ; and after so long an interruption of their correspond- 
ence, they could not avoid alluding to its cause. Their design 
was merely to do this, and to pass it over with as much deli- 
cacy as they could. 

But whether this be or be not a just construction, we have 
in our possession conclusive evidence that no unfavourable 
influence onght to be drawn from these letters. It appears by 
a report of the committee of Greek bond-holders in London, 
made on the 4th of September last, which we have now before 
lis in the Liverpool Mercury, that the deputies then had on 



Liability of Arbitrators as Trustees, 135 

hand, the very £250,000 spoken of by Mr. Contostavlos, 
being part of the first loan, and which must have been at least 
of the value which he stated — and not only this, but that they 
also had £185,000 of the second loan. 

To close and complete his exultation on this delicate topic, 
Mr. Bayard brings forward these letters of the deputies, writ- 
ten in the latter part of March and beginning of April, in aid 
of Mr. Contostavlos' negotiation; to falsify that gentleman's 
assertion that they had determined in December preceding, 
to break oft", and did break off, all communication with the 
houses. 

It is our duty to add, that Mr. Contostavlos stated on oath, 
before the arbitrators, that he had been frequently advised by 
the houses, in their verbal communications, to observe an en- 
tire secrecy in regard to the whole transaction, because it was 
illegal : and that he had been advised by an eminent professi- 
onal gentleman, that he had no legal remedy against the 
houses, and that he must throw himself on their mercy. This 
statement was made in the presence of the individuals to whom 
he referred, and was not contradicted. 

We should gladly have excluded from this discussion every 
topic relating to the compensation of the arbitrators. But jus- 
tice to Mr. H. D. Sedgwick requires an explanation upon a 
single point of controversy between him and the arbitrators, 
or rather between him and Judge Piatt, if that gentleman is 
to be considered the author of the Report.* 

A paper was drawn up for the purpose of exempting the 
arbitrators from all responsibility as trustees, of which a copy 
is given in the Report. The arbitrators say, " they had no 
objection to receiving that explanatory declaration of the re- 
sponsibility of their trust, but it was considere] by them of 
little value or importance." Mr. H. D. Sedgwick states in 
his Refutation,! that that paper was given in consequence of 
a suggestion by the arbitrators of the risk attending the trust, 
and that it was received without an intimation of its insuffici- 
ency. 

Report, p. ?. i Refutation, p. 4. 



136 Liability of Arbitrators as Trustees. 

The counsel of the houses in their letter to the arbitra- 
tors, say of this paper, " it never was to the best of our recol- 
lection required, nor was the propriety of giving it suggested 
by either of you, nor was it the result of any arrangement 
with us." 

The following frank acknowledgment of Mr. De Rham, 
confirms the statement of Mr. H. D. Sedgwick, who certainly 
had a right to infer, as is fairly inferable from the letter of 
Mr. De Rham, that his request was known to his associates, 
and that they were as well satisfied with the security as he 
was. 

The following is an extract from the letter. 

"To John Duer, Esq. 

New-York, November 17th, 1826. 
Sir, 

Messrs. Emmet and Ogden in their letter to the arbitrators, 
contained in this day's Enquirer, state, that to the best of their 
recollection, the paper of the 28th June was never required, 
nor the propriety of giving it suggested by either of the ar- 
bitrators. As it is probable that this paper was drawn up hi 
consequence of my refusal to serve as trustee, after my two 
associates had consented, I deem it proper to state to you, 
and to acknowledge that I did ask you for such a paper ; and 
that on your assurance, I considered it as shielding me from 
any responsibility, not being then acquainted with the legal 
exceptions there might be to it. But the counsel for the houses 
were not apprised of this, and therefore thought that none of 
the arbitrators had requested this explanatory declaration of 
28th June, and stated this their belief." 

We are wearied with exposing the misrepresentations of 
Mr. Bayard, — but there are some remaining which must be 
noticed, and they shall be briefly despatched. Mr. Bayard 
says, that Judge Piatt was nominated on the part of the depu- 
ties. This is not so. Judge Piatt was first named in an in- 
formal interview between Chancellor Kent and Mr. R. Sedg- 
wick, but his name was first suggested by Chancellor Kent, 
and instantly assented to by Mr. Sedgwick. 



Loss by Williams' Failure. t&l 

Mr. Bayard also declares, that lie heard of no objection to 
Mr. Abraham Ogden, and that he does not believe, that any 
objection was made to him, before the publication of the Nar- 
rative. That gentleman's multiplied and intimate connexions 
with one of the houses, were pressed upon Chancellor Kent, 
as one of the counsel of the houses, as sufficient reason why he 
should not be retained as arbitrator, and Chancellor Kent after- 
wards informed Mr. R. Sedgwick, that the opposite parties 
would not consent to withdraw Mr. Ogden. 

Mr. Bayard is very indignant at a most perverted interpre- 
tation by Mr. Contostavlos, of a letter of the houses, by which 
a declaration that "ships of war building for Mexico, Brazils, 
Colombia, and Peru, besides 15 frigates for the United States, 
occasion such an activity in our ship-yards," is made to 
refer to the ship yards of New- York, and not to those of the 
Union, and he asserts that it is " strictly true" in this latter 
sense. This he does, although but four frigates were 
then building in all the United States,* and although no ship 
of war was ever built here for Peru, as far as we can learn. 
But we forbear. 

We now proceed to the consideration of those claims of the 
houses which the arbitrators rejected, most unwillingly, how- 
ever, it seems from their Report, and not from any sense of 
their injustice, but from deference to some positive rules of law 
and evidence that were opposed to their admission. That the 
arbitrators have felt and expressed themselves as they have 
done in relation to these claims, we have already intimated is 
one of the strongest proofs that could have been given of the 
force and extent of the delusion under which they acted and 
wrote. But it is more than a strong proof; it is of itself evi- 
dence, complete and resistless, that they permitted their sym- 
pathies to overpower their judgment. 

These claims, we believe, are not very generally or fully 
understood. They have, indeed, been frequently referred to, 
but their nature has not been distinctly stated, nor has the 

* See the Report of the Secretarj' for the Navy for 1825, annexed to tb& 
President's Message, 



138 Loss by Williams' Failure. 

evidence in relation to them been exhibited. The few words 
that the arbitrators have said on the subject, are calculated 
(we do not say, nor mean, intended) to mislead and deceive the 
public. 

It was a mistake in the Narrative of Mr. Contostavlos, not 
to have assigned to these claims a more prominent place. The 
error must be corrected ; for the fact that they were advanced 
and persisted in, is by no means one of the least important in 
the controversy. It lends an additional credibility to every 
charge that has been preferred, and to every suspicion that 
has been intimated : it is a link in the chain of circumstantial 
evidence, that connects and supports our gravest accusations. 

We begin with the claim of the Messrs. Howland to be re- 
munerated by the Deputies for the loss they sustained by the 
failure of their banker, Mr. Williams. When the facts are 
stated, it will be seen that discussion and comment are unne- 
cessary. 

The Messrs. Howland, on the 23d of May, drew on the 
Messrs. Rirardo, in favour of Mr. Williams, for £12,500 stg. 
The monies were received by Mr. Williams, and remained as 
a fund in his hands, on which the Messrs. Howland drew at 
intervals, and in sums to suit their own convenience. — £7,500 
sterling of this fund still remained unpaid at the time of Wil- 
liams' failure. This failure took place on the 24th of Octo- 
ber, five months after the Messrs. Howland drew on the Ri- 
cardos, three months after they were informed of the accept- 
ance of their draft, and more than two months after it was 
actually paid. This loss the Messrs. Howland claimed should 
be paid by the Deputies ; and, by adding damages and re- 
exchange on their protested bills on Mr. Williams, they finally 
stated its amount at upwards of $43,000. 

The principle on which it was endeavoured to maintain this 
demand was, that agents are never responsible for losses not 
proceeding from their fra id or neglect. The Messrs. How- 
land, it was insisted, had the same right to deposit their funds 
with their banker in London, to be drawn on their bills of 
exchange, that they would have had to have placed them in 
a bank ia this city ; in which latter case it was said te be clear. 



Loss ly Williams* Failure. 139 

that had a loss resulted from the failure of the bank, the De- 
puties must have sustained it. To this the reply was obvious, 
that there was no analogy between the cases ; that a deposit 
in the hands of a banker in London, was neither necessary in 
the execution of the trust, nor proper to be made at the risk 
of the Deputies, who were on the spot, without their consent ; 
that it was their evident understanding that their own bankers 
should retain the funds, until they were required for use in this 
country. As lone: as they remained in England, it belonged 
to them alone to determine to whom their confidence should 
there be given, and they had given it to the Messrs. Ricardo. 
That this answer was alone sufficient, we believe none will 
doubt ; but it was not the only answer, in fact, given to this 
extraordinary claim. 

1. The Messrs. Howland, at an early period in their agen- 
cy, expressed their wishes to the Deputies, that they should 
be permitted to draw on Mr. Williams in preference to the 
Ricardos ; and of course, that the Deputies should place their 
funds in the hands of Mr. Williams, to answer the drafts. In 
reply, the Deputies refuse compliance with this request, and 
declare that they had private reasons for deciding that their 
funds should remain with their own bankers, and the bills of 
the Messrs Howland be drawn on them. After this, to place 
the funds in the hands of Mr. Williams at all, was to evade 
the intentions of the Deputies ; and to do so at their risk, was 
to compel them to agree to that to which they had, in plain 
terms, refused their assent. 

2. The next answer will sufficiently appear, by the follow- 
ing extract from a letter of General Lallemand to the Depu- 
ties. It will be felt better without a preface. The letter was 
written on the 15th December, 1825, after information had been 
received of Mr. Williams' failure, and under the belief that by 
that event the Messrs. Howland had sustained a serious loss, 
which it was at least possible they would seek to charge on 
the Deputies. The General, after stating what bills had been 
drawn in favour of Williams by the Messrs. Howland, and 
giving the Deputies some good advice, proceeds thus : M Let 
11 us now see what is your situation as it respects the Messrs. 



440 Loss by Williams'' Failure, 

iC Howland. When Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard & Co. and 
ic Messrs. G. G. & S. Howland received the credit which you 
" transmitted to them, for the sum of £12,500 sterling,* on 
" the Messrs. Ricardo, and you directed them to draw in fu- 
" ture on that house, for such funds as the building of the firi- 
" gates might require, — in a conference between the Messrs, 
6i Howland, Messrs. Bayard, and myself, respecting your 
" affairs, the Messrs. Howland objected that, as they had no 
" knowledge of the Messrs. Ricardo, they were desirous that 
" their credits should be opened on Mr. Samuel Williams^ 
" whom they knew, and who had their confidence. I replied, 
u that the Messrs. Ricardo equally deserved their confidence, 
" and that we could not either change the credits, or under- 
" take to judge of the motives that had led you to fix them 
" as you had done, but must of necessity conform to your 
Ci wishes. They answered, that they would draw for the whole 
" amount of each credit on the Messrs. Ricardo, in favour of 
" Williams, with whom they would leave the funds on which 
" their particular drafts would afterwards be passed. 1 declar- 
" ed that they had an undoubted right to pursue that course. 
" in their own affairs which they judged best ; but that, from 
" the time their bills should be paid by the MessrSo Ricardo, the 
"funds must be at their risk, and upon their responsibility. They 
" agreed that this was just ; and the Messrs. Bayard, who 
" drew upon the Messrs. Ricardo in favour of the Messrs* 
" Baring, declared from the first that they admitted them- 
cc selves to be liable for all sums paid on their signature. 

" It is therefore very certain -that Messrs. G. G. h S. How- 
u land are responsible to you for all monies that they receiv- 
" ed from the Messrs. Ricardo on your account, and which it 
" has suited them to leave in the hands of Mr. Samuel Wil- 

* There is here a slight error of recollection on the part of General Lai- 
lemand, but not at all affecting- his statement. There was no credit trans- 
mitted for this sum ; but the houses drevr under their construction of the 
Deputies' letter of the 5th of March. The period to which the General 
intends to refer this conversation, must therefore be when the houses were 
proceeding to draw by virtue of their supposed authority. This was about 
the. middle of Mav. 



Loss by Williams 9 Failure. 141 

•• Hams. Whatever losses may result, proceed from their own 
" acts, and ought to be borne by them only. Yet T fear that 
" it is their design to throw them on you. Different circum- 
" stances have occasioned this fear, and some of recent occur- 
M rence, which show a conduct by no means open on the part 
• { of the Messrs. Howland, and disclose intentions against 
cc which it will be necessary to guard."* 

* " Maintenant voici quelle est votre situation a l'egard de Messrs* 
Howland. 

u Lorsque Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard, and Co. et Messrs. G. G. & S. How- 
land re<jurent le credit que vous leur addressates pour la somme de 
12,500/. sterling-, sur Messrs. Ricardo et que vous leur ecrivites de tirer a 
l'avenir sur cette maison pour les fonds qui seraieat necessaires pour la con- 
struction des fregates dans une conference ou nous traitions de vos affaires 
avec Messrs. Howland et Messrs. Bayard, Messrs. Howland objecterent 
que ne connaissant pas \Iessrs. Ricardo ils desiraient que les credits leur 
fussent ouverts sur Messrs. Samuel Williams qu'ils connaissaient et qui 
avait leur confiance. Je leur repondis que Messrs. Ricardo la meritaient 
egalement, qui nous ne pouvions ni changer les credits ni nous rendre ju- 
ges des motives qui vous avaient portes a les regler comme vous veniez de 
le faire et qu'il falloit necessairement s'y conformer. Messrs. Howland 
repliquerent qu'ils tireraient pour la somme totale de chaque credit pour 
Messrs. Ricardo a l'ordre de Samuel Williams cfc-ez qu'ils laisseraient les 
fonds pour fournir en suite leurs traites partielles sur lui. Je leur decla- 
rai qu'ils etaient sansdoute les maitres de regler leurs propros affaires com- 
me ils l'entendaient, mais que les fonds, du moment ou ils avaient ete payes 
sur leurs traites par Messrs. Ricardo, etaient sur leur garantie et leur res- 
ponsibility. Ils convinrent que cela etait juste et Messrs. Bayard qui 
tiroient sur Messrs. Ricardo a l'ordre de Mr. Baring, prononcerent des le 
premier instant qu'ils se reconnaissaient toujours responsables pour toutes 
les sommes paves sur leur signature. 

M II est done bien constant que Messrs. G. G. et Messrs Howland sont res- 
ponsables envers vous pour toutes les sommes qu'il leur a convenu de laisser 
chez Mr. Samuel Williams; toutes les pertes qui peuvent en r6sultervien~ 
nent de leurs propres operations et ne doivent peser que sur eux. 

" Jecrains eependant qu'ils ne cherchenta les rejetter sur vous. Cette 
crainte m'est inspiree par diverses circonstances et par quelques traits tout 
recents qui annoncent, de la part de Messrs. Howland une marche qui n' 
est pas franche et des intentions contre lesquelles il faut etre en garde." 

Mr. H. D. Sedgwick seems to admit (Ref. p. 40. note) that some doubt 
is thrown on this statement by the evidence given by Mr. Bayard before 
the arbitrators. Mr. Bayard stated, that he was present at the conversa- 



142 Loss oy Williams 9 Failure. 

The fears of General Lallemand were very soon realized* 
From his subsequent letters it appears, that the Messrs. How- 
lands at first believed their loss to be much greater than it 
finally appeared, and consequently they increased in the same 
proportion their demands on the Deputies. In what manner 

tion in question, and that Mr. G. G. Rowland was also present: that he, 
(Mr. B ) did make the declarations stated in the letter, but that he had no 
recollection that Mr. Howland said what is ascribed to him, and he added, 
that Mr. Howland did not speak French, and understood it, if at all, very 
imperfectly. In the possible doubt suggested bv Mr. Sedgwick, we do not 
at all concur. We do not think, that our faith in the very minute account 
which General Lallemand has given of a conversation consisting 1 of a series 
of question sand replies, ought to be shaken in the least by the evidence of 
Mr. Bayard. We shall not dwell on the reasons why, if there were a con- 
tradiction, the letter, written at the time, and under the circumstances, 
it was, should command our belief ; but there is no contradiction. Mr. 
Bayard did not recollect what the General certainly did, and which;, 
therefore, as certainly must have occurred. We are unable to perceive 
that Mr. Rowland's not understanding or not speaking French, has any 
thing to do with the question. The question is not what he understood, 
but what General Lallemand understood, and that he did not understand 
Mr. Holland's English is not pretended. It was in English that Mr. How- 
land's reply was made. \' I agree that this was just," and if it was made, it 
was a direct answer to what General Lallemand had before stated, and 
which therefore, must have been understood. Besides, if Mr. Howland 
does not understand French, and General Lallemand spoke French, who 
interpreted ? For that General Lallemand had a conversation with Mr. 
Howland on the subject, in which they addressed each other, it is impossi- 
ble to doubt, and even Mr. Bayard did not deny. We should think Mr. B. 
must himself have acted as interpreter. He was present — he took a part 
in the conversation, and made the same declarations that are ascribed to Mr. 
Howland. Had there been any error or misconception, Mr. Bayard, who 
understands both languages perfectly well, must have perceived and cor- 
rected it. Nor is this all. To gu rd against accidents, we may as well 
mention, that it appears very clearly from General Lallemand's letters, 
written in December and January, (of which there are several,) that Mr. 
Bayard entirely concurred at that time in General Lallemand's opinion, 
as to the great impropriety of the Messrs. Howlands' conduct in urging 
their Williams 1 claim, and we think it cannot be doubted that their opinions 
rested on the same grounds We ought to add that by the consent of the 
o posite counsel, the letters of General Lallemand' were ■ « e \ to have the 
same effect, as if the General had sworn to their contents. They were con- 
sidered as sworn to. 



Loss by Williams 1 Failure. 143 

they urged these demands, and in what manner they meditated 
to secure them, the following extracts will show. They 
are not multiplied beyond what is now the exigency of the 
case. The next letter of Gen. Lallemand is on the 19th of 
December; it begins,* " Since my letter of the 15th of this 

Messieurs, 

" Depuis ma lettre da 15 de ce mois expediee par le packet da 16, 
j'aiapprispositivement que Messrs. G. G etS Howland pretendaient que 
voire gouvemement devait supporter les pertes resultant de la faillite de 
Mr. Samuel Williams pour les sommes qui se trouvaient entre ses mains 
par suite des traites tirees sur Messrs Kicardo, pour la constrution de 
vos batimens cette perte serait, du .noius, de vingt-cinq mille livres ster- 
ling ; il y a meme de fortes raisons pour croire qu'elle s'eleveiait plus 
haut. Samedi dernier 17, j'ai appris que Messrs. Howland, serieuse- 
ment occupes de leur projet, consultaient des avocats et s'avisaient aux 
moyens d'atteindre leur but. J'ai vu de suite deux avocats, dont Pun, 
est le plus celebre du barreau de cette ville, leur ai pos la question 
en leur repetant la conference que je vous relatais dans ma lettre du 15 
comme ayanteu lieu entre Messrs. Bayard, Howland etmoi,au sujet du 
credit du £12,500 que vous aviez assigue sur Messrs. Ricardo. Sur 
l'expose que j'ai pu faire conformement aux renseignemens que je pos- 
sedais, les, deux avocats que j'ai vus n'ont pas hesite a prononcer, un 
opinion qui vous est entitlement favorable. lis ont ajoute qu'il etait 
impossible que Messrs Howland trouvassent un avocat qui leur con- 
seillat de poursuivre et ne les condamnat pas immediatement. 
********** 

"Mainten?nt, pendant que Messrs, Howland chargent leur agent a 
Londres, de solliciter de vous de neuve aux credits, ils parlent ici de vous 
faire supporter une perte de plus de vingt cinq mille livres sterling, pour 
laquelle ils se truuvent compris dans la faillite de Mr. Samuel Wil- 
liams, ils parlent meme du credit de douze mille livres sterling sur 
Messrs. Ricardo, qui leur est annonce par vos lettres du 15 October, 
comme devant couvrir les traites protestees qui leur reviennent de la 
faillite de Mr. Samuel Williams 

" Peut on douter, d' apres cela que les nouveaux credits que vous leur 
accorderiez ne servissent a les nantir, ne fussent employes a assurer 
leurs pretentions et a les rendre tellement m litres de vos affaires que 
vous ne pussiez eviter les pertes qu'ils veulent rejetter sur vous ? 

"Non seulement je pense que vous devez laisser annuler les traites 
qu'ils ont tires sur Messrs. Ricardo, a l'ordre de Mr. Samuel Williams 
les 22 et 31 October, et le 23 Novembre, sans leur accorder de nouveaux 
credits, mais mon opinion est que vos interets exigent absolument que 
vos affaires soient retirees de leurs mains. 

"En consequence de toutes les considerations precedentes, le credit de 
douze mille livres sterling, envoye par Messrs. Ricardo et accompagne 



144 Loss by Williams'* Failure. 

" month sent by the packet of the 16th, I have learnt posi- 
" tively that the Messrs. Howland claim that your government 
" ought to sustain the losses resulting from the failure of Mr, 
" Samuel Williams, to the extent of the sums in his hands, 
" as the proceeds of bills drawn by them on the Messrs. Ri- 
" cardo for the building of your ships. 

" This loss will be at least £25,000 sterling. There are 
" even strong reasons for believing that it will exceed that 
" amount. On Saturday last the 17th, I learnt that the 
" Messrs. Howland, seriously engaged in executing their pro- 
Ci ject, were consulting lawyers,* and considering about the 
" the meass of effecting their object. 

" 1 called without delay on two lawyers, of whom one is the 
< c most celebrated at the bar of this city,f and asked their 
il opinion on the question, repeating to them the conference 
" which I related to you in my letter of the 15th, as having 
" taken place between the Messrs. Bayard and Howland and 
" myself on the subject of the credit of £12,500, which you 
" had given them on the Messrs Ricardo. On the statement 
" that I made, according to my knowledge of the facts, the 
" gentlemen whom I consulted without hesitation pronounced 
" an opinion in your favor. They added that it was impossible 
" the Messrs. Howland should find a single lawyer who would 
" advise them to prosecute their claim, and who would not 
" instantly condemn them." In a subsequent part of the same 
letter, he says, " At present, while the Messrs. Howland are 
u instructing their agent in London to solicit from you new 
" credits, they speak here of compelling you to sustain a loss 
" of more than £25 000 sterling, to which extent they are 
" committed by the failure of Mr. Williams. They even speak 
" of their right to apply the credit on theRicardos, of £12,000 

par la lettre du 15 Octobre n'a point ete remis a Messrs. Howland et ne 
le sera point, a moins que vous ne donnez de nouveaux ordres ties 
precis qui obligent a le leur liorer " 

* For which it will be remembered the arbitrators made the Deputies 
pay 100 dollars. See Mr. Sedgwick's Refut. p. 17. 

f It is due to Mr. Emmet to say, that he did not appear as the advocate 
of the Messrs. Howland in relation to this claim. 



Loss by Williams' Failure. 145 

" which you announce to them in your letter of the 15th Oc- 
" tober, to cover their bills on Williams that were returned 
" protested inconsequence of his failure." 

The impression made at this time on the mind of General 
Lallemand, and the advice he deemed it necessary to give, ap- 
pear by the passage immediately following : 

" After this, is it possible to doubt that, should you grant 
" them new credits, they will only be seized and converted by 
" the Messrs. Howlands to their own indemnity ? 

" They will be employed to secure their claims by giving 
" them such a control over your affairs, that you will not be 
" able to escape the loss which it is their design you should 
" bear. 

" Not only do I think that you ought to permit their bills of 
" the 22d and 31st October and of the 23d of November, 
" drawn on the Ricardos in favour of Williams, to be pro- 
" tested, without granting them new credits, but I am further 
" of opinion, that your interests absolutely require that your 
" concerns should be withdrawn from their hands." 

We request a particular attention to the succeeding pas- 
sage : — 

" In consequence of all these considerations, the letter of 
" credit for £12,000 sterling, sent by the Messrs. Ricardo, 
" and accompanied by the letter of the 15th of October,* has 
" not been delivered to the Messrs. Howland, and will not be 
" unless you give us new orders, so precise as to compel us to 
" do so." 

The next letter of the General is of the 24th of December. 
In it he repeats his former information, and enforces his for- 
mer advice ; and adds, that when the intelligence of Mr. Wil- 
liams' failure was received, the Messrs. Howland refused, 
for some days, to make any further advances on account of 
the frigate under their care, and persisted in this refusal until 
they were advised of the new credit of the 15th of October, 



* This letter, enclosing the credit, must have been addressed to the 
Messrs. Bayard, who., therefore, united with Gen. Lallemand in withhold - 
iug the credit. 

T 



146 Loss by Williams 1 Failure. 

when their resolution was instantly (tout a coup) changed, 
with the obvious intent (as the General proceeds to remark 
and prove,) of using the credit to cover their loss ; he, there- 
fore, in a subsequent part of his letter repeats his determina- 
tion to withhold this credit, and adds, that had not the Messrs. 
Bayard been united with him in their intentions and views, 
the interest of the deputies must have greatly suffered. 

3. The reader must now prepare for a change of scene. It 
will at once strike him, after what he has read, that General 
Lallemand could not deliver to the Messrs. Howland the let- 
ter of credit, that was withheld until their claim was most 
explicitly abandoned. The weighty reasons assigned by Gen. 
Lallemand for withholding this credit must have continued to 
subsist, in all their force, until the danger of its improper use 
had ceased to exist. We are, therefore, bound to believe, 
that General Lallemand would not have placed the credit in 
the hands of the Messrs. Howland, but from the entire con- 
viction that their claims had been renounced and would never 
be revived. To have delivered it to them from any other mo- 
tives, or under any other circumstances, would not merely 
have been inconsistent with the previous declarations of Gen. 
Lallemand, but equally so, we must be permitted to say, with 
his honour as a man, and his fidelity as an agent. But we are 
not left to conjecture on this subject. Gen. Lallemand shall 
again speak for himself. In his letter of the 24th of January, 
addressed to the deputies, he says : 

" I have already informed you, with scrupulous exactness, 
" of the effects produced in this city by the failure of Mr. 
" Williams, and of the dispositions manifested by the Messrs. 
" Howland on the occasion. 

" Whether the anxiety of the Messrs. Howland has entirely 
" ceased, in consequence of their having ascertained that their 
" loss was much less than they originally supposed, or whe- 
" therthe advice they received satisfied them that their claims 
" were unfounded, they now appear to have renounced all un- 
(l just pretensions, and every project contrary to your inter- 






Loss by Williams 9 Failure, 147 

u ests. They no longer hesitate to make the advances which 
" the work demands."* 

In a letter of the 16th of February, the General reminds 
the deputies, that he had previously informed them, that the 
Messieurs Howland had returned to the execution of their 
trust, and were making all the necessary advances. He adds, 
that they had continued to act in the same manner, and that 
the advances, which they had thus been compelled to make, 
having become considerable, it became just that they should 
receive the letter of credit for £12,000, which had been provi- 
sionally retained whilst their views were hostile to the interests 
of the deputies, and that the creditf had been accordingly de- 



*" Messieurs, 

" Je vous ai fait connaitre avec une scrupuleuse exactitude, les 
resultats qu' avait eus ici la faillite de Mr. Samuel Williams, et les dis- 
positions que Messrs. Howland avaient manifestoes dans cette occasion. 

" Soit que Messieurs Howland aient moins perdu qu'il ne l'avaient, 
craint d'abord et que leurs inquietudes se soient tout a fait calmees 
soit que les conseils qu'ils auront pris leur aient d6montr6 et fait sentir 
que leurs pretentions n'etaient pas fondees, ils paroissent avoir r^nonce 
a toutes pretentions injustes a tous projets contraires a vos interets, ils 
n'hesitent plus a faire les avances que les travaux exigent." 

■} There is a mystery relating to this letter of credit which we are desirous 
should be explained. We shall state frankly our suspicions and the grounds 
on which they rest. It appears to us, from the above letters, that the credit 
was certainly not delivered before the 24th of January, and probably not 
until the 16th of February. Had it been delivered before the 24th of 
January, the fact would have been stated in the letter of that date ; and it 
seems to us, that, in the letter of the 16th of February, the delivery of the 
credit is placed on the ground of advances made by the Messrs. Howland 
in the interval. We do not see that the terms of the letter admit of a dif- 
ferent interpretation. Yet in the exchange account of the Messrs. How- 
land the bill drawn by them on the Messrs. Ricardo, by virtue of this letter 
of credit, and which certainly was not drawn until the credit was delivered, 
is stated to have been drawn on the 16th of January. But it will be asked, 
what motive can be assigned for thus ante-dating the draft ? The motive 
unfortunately is too plain. If the bill was not drawn until February, it 
was drawn after the houses had received information of the non-acceptance 
of their bills of the 23d of November, and after they had received letters 
both from the deputies and from the Messrs. Ricardo, stating, that they 
considered the credit as already exhausted. It was then drawn, with a 



148 Loss by Williams' Failure. 

livered.* We consider this letter as meaning to assert, that 
the hostile views of the Messrs. Howland had ceased, and 
those views related solely to the claim in question. 

Such then was the nature of the loss which the Messrs. How- 
land sought to impose on the government of Greece — a loss of 
moneys drawn without right, on a pretence of a necessity that 
did not exist, placed in the hands of their banker against the 
wishes of the deputies and under an agreement that the risk 
should be their own. To be remunerated for this loss was 
their claim, a claim actually renounced — on the faith of its 
abandonment new means of obtaining funds delivered to 
them — revived after several months — and the property of their 
principals refused to be surrendered until it was satisfied. — 
Such was the claim reluctantly denied by the arbitrators, 
who " felt the hardship of the case," and who, in their faithful 
report, place its rejection on a ground to which the counsel 
for the deputies scarcely adverted, and omit all those on which 
they actually relied — relied not merely to defeat the claim — 
we knew it could not be admitted — but to show the character 
and motives of those by whom it was advanced. 

The damages on their protested bills is the only claim of 
the houses that now remains to be considered, and this we 



certain'knowledge, that acceptance would be refused, and with no conceiva- 
ble design but of founding a claim on the Ricardos for the amount of the 
bill, or for damages on the deputies. This is one of the bills on which 
damages and re-exchange, to the amount of 30 per cent., were actually 
claimed. The original bill was not produced on the hearing ; it remained 
in England, as evidence (so we are informed) in support of a suit against 
the Messrs. Ricardo. 

* " Messieurs, 

u Je vous ai informes deja que Messieurs G. G. et S. Howland 
etaient revenus a la resolution de continuer a donner leurs soins a. la 
construction de la fregate dont ils avaient accepte la commission et 
qu'ils faisaient touts les avances de foods que les travaux exigeaient. 
Us continuent a agir ainsi, les avances qu'ils sont obliges de fnire etant 
devenues considerables il devenait juste aussi de leur remettre la lettre 
de credit de douze inille livres sterling qui avait ete envovee pour eux, 
et revenue provesoirement lorsque leurs intentions annoncees etaient 
contraires a vos interels, cette t lettre de credit leur a done ete remise." 



Damages on Protested Bills. 14^ 

have purposely reserved as the last topic of our discussion. 
The aggregate amount of these damages (including the re- 
exchange at 10 per cent.) as charged in the account of the 
houses, is £16,500, that is seventy-three thousand two hun- 
dred and fifty dollars.* 

Of the true character of this claim, we are persuaded that 
many of those who have taken an interest in this controversy 
have little apprehension. Indeed, the efforts to deceive the 
public in relation to it have been constant and persevering, 
and to a considerable extent successful ; for the assertions of 
the houses have been circulated by the zeal, and aided by the 
sympathy of numerous friends upon whom those assertions have 
imposed. It is in relation to this claim that the insinuations of 
the " full and faithful report," are the most artful and falla- 
cious, and the allegations of Mr. Bayard the most bold, unqua- 
lied, and imposing. It is by these means that a conviction 
has been produced in the minds of many that the claim for 
damages was fair and justifiable, and that in preferring it the 
houses were seeking only an indemnity against losses which 
they had in fact susta: ed, or to which they were exposed. 

The statement of Mr. Bayard is as follows : " Our claim 
" for damages on the protested bills was founded on the fact, 
" that those bills were drawn by the two houses on their respec- 
" tive correspondents, against, and with a specific view to the 
" funds to arise from the bills on Ricardos, and which for 
" want of confirmed credits we deemed it unsafe to nego- 
" tiate on them direct. As the former were protested in con- 
" sequence of the protest of the latter, andthe drawers were 
" thus made liable for damages, we considered ourselvesjustly 
" entitled to indemnification. The arbitrators upon strict legal 
" principles thought otherwise." (Exp. p. 24.) To characterise 
this statement we shall not borrow any of the epithets which Mr. 
B. has so lavishly applied to Mr. Contostavlos. If they are 
applicable, we have lost the disposition to apply them ; but our 
obligations to state the truth, and the necessity of stating it, no 
events have occurred to affect. 

* See appendix to Mr. Contostavlos' Narrative, No. 1 & 2. 



150 Damages. 

The statement of Mr. B. asserts or implies, 

That the bills on which the damages were claimed, were 
drawn by the houses on their respective correspondents, not 
on the Ricardos, the bankers of the Deputies. 

That these protested bills were drawn on the faith of the 
acceptance or payment of former bills drawn by the houses on 
the Messrs. Ricardo, and with a specific view to the funds thus 
to arise. 

That the protest of the bills on which the damages were 
claimed was a consequence of the protest of the bills on the 
Ricardos. 

That the houses were thus rendered liable for damages, &c. 
to the whole extent of the sum which they claimed, and sought 
nothing more than a bare indemnity. 

That these facts were all fully proved before the arbitra- 
tors, who rejected the claim, not from any doubt as to the loss 
sustained by the houses, but because on strict legal principles 
they did not think them entitled to an indemnity. 

We now request the attention of our readers to a brief ex- 
position of the case according to the fUcts and the evidence. 

1. The bills on which the damages were claimed were four ; 
two, (one drawn by each house) of £15,000 sterling each, 
drawn on the 23d November ; one drawn by Le Roy, Bay- 
ard h Co. on the 15th of December for £13,000, and the last 
by the Messrs. Howland, charged in their account as drawn 
on the 16th of January, probably drawn on the 16th of Fe- 
bruary, for £12,000 sterling. These bills were all drawn on 
the Ricardos, and were remitted by the houses to their res- 
pective correspondents for collection. 

2. None of these bills were the houses authorized 
to draw, and the two last were drawn under circumstan- 
ces that precluded all reasonable expectation of their ac- 
ceptance. The bills of the 23d of November were drawn 
without a confirmed credit, on the usual allegation, that 
the proceeds were required to meet advances ; when such 
was the extent of the funds which the houses had then 
in hand, that they remained unexhausted by payment,* 

* We refer our readers to the interest accounts, No. 1 and 2 Appendix. 



Damages. 151 

for more than five months after this period. The two last bills, 
it is true, were pretended to be drawn under confirmed credits 
from the Ricardos, the credit of the 15th of October. But 
since the date of these credits, the Ricardos had accepted 
bills of the houses for double the amount. The houses knew, 
therefore, that the credit was exhausted, and before the last of 
these bills was drawn, it was also known that the credits were 
considered, both by the deputies and the Ricardos, as satisfied. 
Their letters say so in plain terms. Before this time, also ? 
the letter of the Messrs. Ricardos of the 30th November,* 
and we fully believe, that of the 14th of December, had been 
received. It was impossible to read these letters and not be 
convinced, that, without an investigation of the application of 
the monies already sent, no further payments would be made 
by the Messrs. Ricardos, on account of the frigates. The 
very manner in which the houses drew, shows that they had 
no confidence in the acceptance of their bills. All their 
other bills drawn against confirmed credits, to use the com- 
mercial phrase of Mr. Bayard, were " negotiated direct ;" — 
these alone were remitted for collection. In relation to the 
last bill, we add a circumstance, which to many will seem 
slight, but of which our commercial readers will feel the force, 
There was no letter of advice to the Messrs. Ricardo, on 
whom it was drawn.! 

3. There was no evidence adduced to the arbitrators, that 
either of the houses had drawn a single bill on their own cor- 
respondents against the bills on the Ricardos, or, in the lan- 
guage of Mr. B., with a " specific view to the funds to arise 
from those bills." There was, therefore, no proof that any 
portion of the damages which the houses claimed from the 
deputies, had been paid by them ; or that for such damages 
they were, or could be rendered liable. The arbitrators say, 
" the proof on this subject was defective ;" this is again un- 
fair; it is calculated to make an impression opposite to the 

*These are the letters of which we have before given copious extracts. 

f Why, it may be asked by some, were the bills transmitted at all, if 
payment was not expected ? We leave our readers, who have accom- 
panied us thus far in the examination, to answer the question. If they 
are not now prepared to answer this, and all similar questions, our la- 
bour has been in vain, and we have written under a delusion. 



152 Damages. 

truth. There was no proof whatever, unless the arbitrators 
meant by the terms " defective proof, 1 ' to refer to the asser- 
tions of Mr. Wm. Bayard and of one of his counsel. These 
were indeed very confident and very frequent, but were 
always met by an express denial of the facts asserted, and 
by a demand, that proof should be produced. One or two 
bills of exchange were at last produced, which were said to 
have been drawn against the bills on the Ricardos, and on 
which damages were said to have been paid 5 but of these 
facts, no evidence was given, and the bills, (which were for 
a small amount,) after the lapse of a day or two, were with- 
drawn. The claim for damages was rested by the counsel 
for the houses, in summing up, exclusively on the ground that 
will hereafter be mentioned. 

4. We do not hesitate to avow our entire belief, that no bills 
had, in fact, been drawn by the houses, or either of them, on their 
correspondents, for the payment of which they relied on the 
funds to arise from the bills on the Ricardos. We believe 
that they had never paid, or become liable to pay, a single dol- 
lar of the damages which they claimed. If their bills thus 
drawn, had been protested, they must have been returned to 
them. Why were they not produced ? And if it had not ap- 
peared on their face, that they were drawn with a specific 
view to the funds to arise from the Ricardo bills, that proof 
might have been supplied by the production of their letters of 
advice (or authentic copies) to their correspondents, announ- 
cing their drafts, and specifying, of course, the funds out of 
which they expected them to be paid. We should not have 
objected to this proof, as they well knew. It was the very 
species of proof which the Messrs- Howlands had produced 
in support of their claim for the loss sustained by the failure 
of Williams. They produced several protested bills which 
they had drawn on Mr. Williams, and copies of the corres- 
pondent letters of advice, which stated uniformly, that the bills 
were drawn against the fund of £1*2,500, which their corres- 
pondent had received from the Ricardos, on their bill of the 
23d of May. If they had drawn in the same manner against 
the bills on which the damages were claimed, the same evi- 
dence of the fact must have existed, and would have been 
produced. 



Damages on Protested Bills. lvo 

Nor is it merely on this refusal to produce the requisite 
proof that we found our disbelief of the facts asserted. There 
is another reason, if possible, still more conclusive. The 
protested bills on the Ricardos were all of them protested 
for non-acceptance. If, therefore, the houses drew on their 
own correspondents, with a specific view to the funds to arise 
from those bills, they must have drawn, whilst they were 
yet uncertain whether th^y would be or had been accept- 
ed; yet by drawing in this uncertainty, they would have 
defeated the sole object they had in view, in remitting 
their bills for collection, instead of negotiating them direct. 
They would have incwred the very risk they meant to avoid. 
When they drew on confirmed credits on which they relied, 
they did not remit their bills, but sold them. Why so ? — be- 
cause they relied on the guaranty of the house, granting the 
credit, to protect them against damages. When they draw 
without confirmed credits, they remit for collection — with 
what view ? Evidently to avoid the risk of the damages to 
which the protest of their bills would have exposed them, had 
they sold them. This, indeed, Mr. B. himself confesses, 
where he says, " we deemed it unsafe to negotiate direct 
without confirmed credits \V but it is manifest that to nego- 
tiate direct their bills on fheir own correspondents, would 
have been equally unsafe, until they were informed of the ac- 
ceptance of those remitted for collection; for on the accept 
ance of the latter, as they themselves confess, the fate of the 
former depended. They knew that their correspondents 
would not accept, unless the Ricardos had accepted. We 
do not, therefore, believe, that having remitted their bills for 
collection to avoid the risk of damages, the houses were guilty 
of the inconceivable folly of proceeding without delay to ex- 
pose themselves to the same risk on other bills of the same 
amount.* 

6. The ground on which the counsel of the houses finally 
and exclusively rested their claim to the damages, was that 



* On the £2d of October, Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard h Co. drew on the 
Ricardos without a confirmed credit for £10,000 sterling, and remitted for 
collection, but omitted to draw on their own banker against this bill until 
the 24th of December. This appears from their exchange account in 
our possession. 

V 



154 Damages on Protested Bills. 

they were entitled to them as a compensation for the very se- 
rious injury which their mercantile credit had sustained by the 
repeated dishonour "of their bills on the great theatre of 
London, in that crisis of panic and alarm in the commercial 
world."* 

And to compensate this injury, they claimed the same sum 
that their clients might have been entitled to, had they actually 
been compelled to pay td others the damages they claimed 
from the deputies. We have said in our preliminary remarks, 
that the allegation that the credit of the houses had been or 
could have been injured by the protest of bills remitted for 
collection, was ©n its face impossible and absurd. The terms 
may seem harsh, but being true, they are demanded by the 
occasion, and we feel ourselves compelled to repeat them. 
To injure the credit of a merchant, is to excite doubts of his 
solvency — to create a belief of his embarrassment. In the 
mind of what human being could such a suspicion or belief 
have been produced, as it respects the houses, by the protest of 
bills, for the payment of which they had neither engaged nor 
were expected to provide, and the dishonour of which involved 
them in no responsibility to a single individual ? A debtor in 
England authorizes a merchant, his creditor in this country, 
to draw for the debt. The creditor, from motives of prudence, 
remits the bill for collection. Does the refusal of the debtor 
to pay, his violation of faith, or defect of means, affect the 
mercantile credit of the merchant drawing ? The supposed 
case, one of not unfrequent occurrence, and that of the hou- 
ses, are exactly parallel, except that the houses in drawing 
acted under an authority never conferred, to obtain moneys 
which they had no right to receive. 

What then, (for we believe our readers are prepared to join 
in our meditated reply) what then were these damages ? — this 
claim for an indemnity, which the arbitrators must have allow- 
ed, had not the cold and rigid rules of law checked the cur- 
rent of their sympathy ? They were a bold, a very bold at- 
tempt at extortion. — A very bold attempt, without a shadow 



* Such is the language which the delusion of the arbitrators has led 
them to employ ! This, it seems, was one of their reasons for allowing 
the banking commission. 



Damages on Protested Bills, 155 

of right, a colour of justice, to add more than $70,000 to the 
exorbitant profits which the houses had already charged. 
With no probability of success, no semblance of decency, could 
this additional sum be claimed as commissions. Such com- 
missions, as this addition would have made them, not even a 
stranger, ignora t of our usages, could have been found 
to justify. But the courage of these faithful agents, these 
devoted patriots, was not easily repressed ; they nad 
not yet given sufficient proofs of their "sympathy in fa- 
vour of a gallant and oppressed people." Had they contented 
themselves with that small portion of the resources of Greece 
which they had already claimed, their desire " of animating in- 
stead of repressing the generous feelings of their countrymen 
in a cause dear to the hearts of freemen in every quarter of 
the globe," might have been drawn into question. What cannot 
therefore be claimed as commissions, is sought to be recovered 
under the false name of damages ! Dam agess whereno wrong 

HAD BEEN COMiMITTED, NO INJURY SUSTAINED, NO LOSS INCUR- 
RED ! ! 

Our task is now performed. We have discharged a most 
painful and ungrateful duty. Had we consulted our private 
interests, still more, had we listened to our private feelings, 
we should have remained silent ; but compelled by paramount 
motives to speak, we do not perceive upon a careful review 
of what we have written, that we could have spoken other- 
wise than we have. That we have written with a deep sense 
of the injustice that has been committed, and not without re- 
sentment at the means that have been used to justify or con- 
ceal it, we do not deny ; but of the opinions that we entertain 
and have endeavoured to enforce, these feelings, it must be 
remembered, are not the cause but the effect. That passion 
or prejudices of any kind, have had any share in producing 
our convictions on the merits of the case, we are not con- 
scious. These convictions have been slowly and reluctantly. 
admitted, and seem to us the necessary result of the evidence 
that it has been our duty so repeatedly to examine. 

Certainly we have had no unworthy motives for the course 
we have pursued. Against the charge of having been actu- 
ated by a low desire of notoriety, a mean passion for popu- 
larity, if the character of the journal in which it was preferred 



I06 Conclusion. 

be not our sufficient shield, we hope we may appeal to our 
known sentiments and habits, and to the history of our lives. 
That we have been governed by feelings of personal dis- 
like or animosity towards the arbitrators, they cannot them- 
selves believe. We have said that no gentlemen could hav© 
been selected in whose integrity, in our judgment, a more en- 
tire confidence was to be reposed, and few, we will now add, 
whose private regard we were more willing to retain or acquire. 
Between oae of the arbitrators and one of us, there subsisted 
relations of a very peculiar nature. He was not merely a 
client, whose entire confidence, the counsel who now speaks 
believed that he possessed, but he was a friend, whose friend- 
ship, for a thousand reasons, he was desirous to cultivate and 
preserve — a friend, not only esteemed and beloved for his own 
worth, but perhaps still more so from his very intimate con- 
nexion with those, with whom some of the best and purest, 
and most fondly cherished recollections of the writer's life 
are, and must forever remain associated — treasures of memo- 
ry and affection that time can never diminish. To those 
friends he does not know that any other mode is now left to 
him of conveying his feelings, the assurance that the idea of 
the pain they might suffer, and he inflict, has been to him a 
source of very sincere and serious affliction — they will under- 
stand, and they will believe him, they will believe that the 
reasons of his conduct have at least appeared to him such, as 
he was not at liberty to disregard, and they will not sacrifice . 
the friendship of years because circumstances imposed duties 
on their friend, from which, without a change of his principles 
and his nature, it was impossible to shrink. 

On the causes of the unexpected and unfortunate award, 
there has been much speculation. It is with no false modesty 
we assign as one of the probable causes, the disparity be- 
tween ourselves and the counsel who appeared to vindicate 
the claims and pretensions of the houses. We refer not 
merely to our inferiority in professional talent, but still more 
so in authority over the minds of the arbitrators, a power 
that age, and long established reputation, can alone confer. 

We doubt not that the speech of Mr. Emmet, his very skil- 
ful and eloquent representation of the state and prospects of 
Greece, his artful insinuations as to the motives of Contostav- 



Conclusion. 151 

los, the Ricardos, and others, made a deep impression on the 
minds of the arbitrators. 

The counsel of the houses, in their published letter, have 
intimated an opinion, that " no succours can now be service- 
able to Greece," and this opinion, Mr. Emmet sought to en- 
force before the arbitrators, with all that powerful and fertile in 
genuity, which the interests of his clients seldom fail to com- 
mand. We are afraid that the arbitrators embraced these 
views ; that their minds were thus turned from the conse- 
quences of their award, and withheld from reflecting on the 
magnitude of the interests committed to their decision. They 
were not improbably led to view the controversy as relating 
to the distribution of a fund in which the government and peo- 
ple of Greece had little interest, and they preferred the claims 
of our own citizens to the supposed demands of the Ricardos, 
and the bond holders in England. Nothing, according to Mr. 
Emmet, could be more irrational, more chimerical, than the 
expectation that Greece would be able to assert or maintain 
her independence. It was a visionary hope in which the 
young might indulge, but which age and wisdom were compel- 
led to reject. The fate of Greece, he declared, was already 
decided. The contest was over, the spirit of vitality had fled, 
and it was vain to think it would ever be recalled — " Greece 
was already a corpse, and the pretended zeal of her friends 
was but the clamour of the vultures hastening to their prey." 
For ourselves, in listening to Mr. Emmet, never for an in- 
stant did we confound the advocate with the man. He is the 
last man to preach the lessons of despair in the cause of free- 
dom, and his sinister prophecies we felt were not to be recon- 
ciled with the sentiments and history of his life. He spoke as 
he was instructed ; he represented the wishes of those by whom 
he was employed, and his voice did but repeat the croaking 
of some of those ill omened birds of prey, the ravenous and 
boding vultures, to whom he had alluded. Had he followed 
the suggestions of his own generous nature, hisjpredictions 
would have been conceived in a very different strain. 

Had it been his fortune to address the arbitrators as he be- 
lieved and felt, instead of seeking to blast with the mildew of 
heartless ridicule their best affections, how would he have 
warmed their hearts, and exalted their hopes, by unveiling the 



I5S Conclusion. 

glories of emancipated and triumphant Greece. * Dark and 
desperate (he would have exclaimed) as the state of Greece 
may appear, there is still light, there is still hope — still light to 
those who have eyes to see — still hope to those who have the 
hearts and the courage to embrace it. A nation animated by 
that determined resolution to be free, which the Greeks in 
their struggle have evinced, may be exterminated, cannot be 
subdued. There is still light, there is still hope, as long as 
there is a city, afortress,a mountain, a fastness, an isle, to which 
soldiers and patriots may resort, and whence, when the storm is 
past, they may issue forth to reclaim their rights, and to avenge 
their wrongs. It is not, it cannot be, (he would have pursued,) 
it cannot be the design of Providence, that a race so noble 
should be extinguished — no, it is for high purposes they are 
reserved ; it is by calamity they are to be fitted to fulfil their 
destiny ; it is in the school of adversity and suffering they are 
acquiringthose lessons of patience, fortitude, and wisdom, which 
in that school alone are effectually taught. Greece shall still be 
free ! the lights of freedom, of science, of religion, shall be rekin- 
dled to burn with a pure and a permanent lustre ; their rays 
shall in time extend to the furthest east, and the desolate 
shores of Africa and Asia shall soon participate and rejoice in 
the splendour. 5 

All, this, said by him, enforced, expanded, illustrated by 
him, (as true an orator as a country fertile in orators has ever 
produced,) would have reached the hearts of those whom he 
addressed. The arbitrators would have been wakened from 
their delusion ; the voice of duty and conscience would have 
been heard ; the claims of justice and humanity have been sa- 
tisfied. 

AS IT IS, AMERICA OWES AN INDEMNITY 
TO GREECE. 



rlandos and Andreas Luriottis. Interest Oic. 


15th of each month. 








Disburstmenis 






N. 


Amount. 


more than 
Funds. 


Time. 


Inieres'. 




Dolls, els. 


Dolls, els. 


Days. 


Dolls, cts. 


s Ibis month 


13,364 35 




429 


1,114 80 


do 


12,152 71 




398 


940 47 


do 


10,000 00 i 


368 


715 56 


do. .... 


24,003 84 


337 


1,573 24 


do 


29,983 44 




306 


1,784 01 


do 


51,102 03 




276 


2,745 69 


do 


31,592 10 




245 


1,505 00 


do 


46,813 02 




215 


1,957 03 


do 


G6,96G 21 




184 


2,395 89 


do 


30,742 34 




153 


914 47 


do 


19,059 30 




125 


463 23 


do. .... 


15,057 72 




94 


275 21 


do 


12,888 35 




64 


160 38 


do 

* 


10,765 83 


3,62 J 89 


33 


69 06 


374,55G 24 


16,614 14 


iarried to acct. Dr. 








8,641 68 


forward 

rged in their acct. 


5,016 79 
















5-5, is in this acct 
e two months. 


















t paid, or supposed 










without dates, are 










>nts of June 182G 










rlll<3 \JL WUllV lU^W' 


379,573 03 






25,255 82 


sumed by Messrs. 






d charged in their 










ot appear to have 


23,013 67 








Co'.andG.'G'.fcS. 


39,757 00 








* 




62,770 G7 















indos a 
s from 

Desc 



f disburs 
do 
. dc 
dc 
do 
do 
do 
do 

dc 
do 
do 
dc 
dc 
dc 



of interer 



in the ac 

are inclu 
EG. 



i accoui 
sundry c 
s assume 
teyard & 

amission 



APPENDIX. 



ierest (at Ipcr ant.) to July I C. 1 uec, with Jean OrBtnios and Andrew lurioltis. 
n other accounts, and on the disbursement* from the I5ft/i of each month. 



I>«th. 
I I 1,500 OS 



By amount of disllll 



>oly 

August 

Sept. 3,0, 



S.0-14 « 10 „ « 9 
10,000 ,..,■■! 
15,000 „ o 94 



I'll i; 
403 S3 

173 :i 



Lo Hoy, Biiynuli Co. i,i.,l Mil 

iiCCll ,11.1,1 

ik^r-. I.e Hoy. Ioiy.ii.l k Co ii 



1.(11 I o 



-added together, irj^ke the total of tbeit r 



g 

end Andreas Luriottis. 
T \bth of each month. 



Interest calculated 360 



Cr. 



RIPTION. 



ements this month , 



do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 

do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 



. it earned to account Di- 
ll 

fr 

dcount to which no dates 
gjled in the disbursement 

si 
tl 

h; 
p 

a< 
tt 
hi 
tii 



Amount. 



Dolls, cts. 
22,557 72 
15,892 71 
33,319 49 
26,300 00 
32,208 42 
42 456 07 
50,675 68 
33,892 76 

30,096 91 
29,835 51 
21,433 75 
20,290 02 
19,054 11 
10,270 61 



it brought forward... 
demands charged in their 
;d by them but not paid 
Co. and Messrs. How- 
s 



Excess of disbts 
over funds in 
each month c 
placed against 



Dolls, cts. 



688,283 76 



10,505 27 
17,531 59 
40,551 85 



GS,583 71 



6,638 21 
16,908 82 



Time, 



Dai,s, 
429 
398 
368 
337 
306 
276 
245 
215 

184 

153 

125 

94 

64 

33 



Interest. 



Dolls, cts. 
1,881 70 
1,229 94 
2,384 18 
1,723 40 
1,916 39 
2,278 47 
2,414 15 
1,416 90 

1,076 19 
887 60 
520 91 
370 84 
237 10 
65 90 



18,404 27 
6,403 55 



24,807 82 



101 



No. III. 



yew- York, 15 Avril, 102.3. 
Messievks, 

L'arrive du General Lallcmand nous a mis en possession de la 
lettre que vous nous avez fait l'honneur dc nous addresser le 5 Mars, 
renferment les credits de Mons. S. Williams de cinquante mille 
pounds sterling en deux parties de 25m pounds chaque dont 
nous devrons faire usage separement, quoique a tout autre egard 
nous devrons agir d'accord pour le plus grand avantage de la 
nation Grecque, 

Immediatement a la reception de votre lettre nous nous sommes 
addresse a. Tun des commissaires de marine ; ce department est 
compose de quatre de nos officiers les plus estimes, du plus haut 
grade et ayant de l'influence, ils dirigent tout ce qui est relatif a la 
marine — e'est en confiance que nous nous sommes addresses a l'un 
d'eux, et avons ainsi que nous le craignions ete prevenus que 1c 
gouvernment ne vendroit aucun de ses batimens et ne preteroit au- 
cune partie de ses bois de construction a moins d'y etre autorise 
par un acte de Congres qui demanderoit 8 a 9 mois de delay. Le 
Congres n'etant pas actuellement en session — une pareille demande 
a ete faite pour les gouvernemens de Columbia et du Mexique, et 
quoique leur independence soit reconnue par ce pays, leur ministres 
ontete prevenus que leur demande seroit refusee et leur projet a et6 
abandonne". La position de la Grece est difYerente ; notre gou- 
vernement se refusera a toute acte qui pourroit conduire a. des dil- 
ficultes et quoiqu'il n'y aye aucune loi qui empeche la construc- 
tion de batimens, pour eviter toutte plainte des gouvernemens d' 
Europe, il convient d'eviter une publicite inutile et nous donnerons 
a entendre que nous faisons construirc pour le gouvernement du 
Perou, en envoyantles batimens a la mer leur armement sera mis 
abord comme chargement, il n'y aura aucune difficulty, et les bati- 
mens pourront etre assures a une prime tres basse que nous croy- 
ons n'exceedera pas 2 ou 3 per cent, pour un et peut-etre deux 
ports. Malheureusement pour la cause de votre pays, l'ordre a etc 
trop retarde pour que les batimens puissent etre employes cette cam- 
pagne. Le grand nombre de batimens de guerre en construction 
pour Colombia, le Perou, le Mexique, et le Brezil, et 15iregatcs 
pour le gouverncinent des Etats Unis, occasionnent une telle ac- 
livitc dans nos attelior?, <\uenos bati!M^n« no nourront etre constrir. 



fccount 7 C' u 'f. J «"> Orlanio, and Andreas l„rwllis. Interest 
accoun s. Interest on disbursements from 15.J of each month. 



atlrlitatat oUO 



"Hr'"t: 



■lAi.r.cC.j 
9i do. 



■J ! 1 f- i" : . j i' ■ ] 

do. '.'.' 7! 



Description. 


*»*. 




r,„,, 


ftW. 


% amount of disbursements this month 

, ",'•■ do. do 

d °- do. do 

. 3°; do. d0 

! ( i° - do. do'. ;;;;; 

*>• do. Jo 

' do. do. do. 

\ do. do. do 

' do. do. do'. '.'.'.','. 


33.31:1 p 

2i,.3 1 

33.3113 1,: 
lj i.,3 (r, 
50.675 68 
33.892 76 

30,096 91 

<-'J.::.X, 31 

1'. 1 11 

10,170 61 


Doll,, ct,. 
10',9O8 82 


u.„.,. 

368 

3.17 

13 
91 


Do«s. cfa. 
1,881 70 

1,229 51 
2,384 IS 
1,723 40 
1,916 39 

•3,373 r, 

l',416 90 

1,076 79 
887 60 
620 91 
370 81 
237 10 
65 90 


Balance of interest carried to account Di 








6,403 65 


The items in tile account (0 which no date 

aen. iti'.itd ,,re induct, 1 ii< f 1 1 r ■ ,IM, I1|;1 n ( 

for June, 18SG. 










)y balance of account brought forward 

' amount of sundry demands clm,',.'c,l ,, il 1L .i, 
accffimi as as] id 1 lb, ni In ... , 

' L ° te Bay;i "- & Co ' "" a Mc!sr8j How " 


088,283 76 






2-1,307 32 


■10,551 85 








33.333 11 





162 

its et prets a mettre en mer, en moins de six mois. Dans le mfcnie 
espace de temps les huit frigates pourroient etre construites et etre 
pretes pour la campagne prochaine et a temps pour que les equi- 
pages s'accoutumassent a les manceuvrer. 

A Tegard des ofnciers de notre marine pour les commander, cela 
n'est pas possible d'abord aucun de ces officiers ne voudroit servir 
sous un commandant etranger et ensuite ils perdroient leur etat 
s'ils prenoient du service chez 1' etranger, mais pour conduire sure- 
ment ces fragates, nous choisirons parmis nos propres capitaines des 
hommes habiles et en etat de remplir l'objet, et que Ton pourroit 
peut-§tre decider a rester au service de la Grece, et vous les trou- 
verez utiles. Sous tous les rapports, il est entendu que nous ne 
choisirions que des hommes de talent, et sur lesquels on pourroit 
compter. 

Vous pouvez bien penser d'apres tout ce que Ton a dit de la su- 
perior ite de nos officiers de marine, qu'a moins qu'on leur offrit une 
carriere honorable et des avantages, ils ne se decideroient a laisser 
le service de leur pays, et perdre leur avancement ; mais s'ils etoient 
continues en commandement, et qu'il leur fut offert une chance d' 
avancement, telle est leur zele pour la cause de votre pays, qu'ils 
pourroient se devouer a. partager votre sort ; et ils pourroient se 
faire accompagner par un nombre de matelots et canoniers accou- 
tum,es a un service de cette espace. Les lauriers gagnes contre les 
Anglois, ne seroient certainement pas perdus en combattant con- 
tre les Turcs. 

II est bon d'observer que nos compagnies d' assurance sont estab- 
lies avec des capitaux considerables et assurent contre tous risques. 
Prenants, avec tous les habitans de ce pays un vif interest pour les 
succes de votre galante et oppressed nation, nous ne pouvons que 
rcgretter le delay pour obtenir des hatimens si necessaires et impor- 
tants pour la defense de vos isles. Avec des marins aussi braves et 
habiles que les Grecs et bien conduites, nos fregates de premiere 
classe seroient in etat de detruire les plus forts batimens Turcs, et 
il nous semble qu'en resultat ce systeme de defense doit presenter 
un rampart unsurmountable contre vos ennemis. 

La construction de ces batimens sera surveillce avec le plus 
grand soin. et notre attention mmie sera journellement employee a 
hater et inspectionner les travaux. Nous nous trouvons hono- 
res et flattcs du choix que vous avez fait de notre intervention, nous 
ne negiigerons rien pour obtenir des batimens qni fassent honneur 
* notre pav? <?i au servi-e pour Sequel ila sont destines. Nous rf 



ibrant a ce que lo General Lalicmand vous ecrit nous avons rhdn> 
neur de vous rcnouveller l'cxpression de notre parfaite considers 
f.ion, et de notre entier devouemcnt. 

Nous sommes, Messieurs, 

Vos tres humbles et obeisst. Serviteurs, 

LE ROY, BAYARD, & CO, 
Messrs. Jean Orlando and G. G. &, S. HOWLANB. 

Andre Luriottis, 

Londres, 
99 Sackville St. Piccadilly. 
1 



TRANSLATION. 

New- York, 15th April, 182o. 
Gentlemen, 

The arrival of General Lallemand has placed us in possession of 
the letter of the 5th of March, which you have done us the honor to 
address to us ; enclosing two letters of credit from Mr. S. Williams 
of £25,000 each, which we shall use separately, though in every 
other respect we shall act together for the greatest advantage of 
the Greek nation. Immediately upon the receipt of your letter, we 
addressed ourselves to one of the board of navy commissioners, (a 
Tun des commissaires de marine.) This department is composed of 
tour of our most esteemed officers of the highest grade, and having 
much influence, they direct every thing which relates to the marine. 
We addressed ourselves to one of them in confidence, and have 
been informed, as we feared, that the government would not sell 
any of its ships, and would not lend any of its ship-timber, unless 
authorised by an act of Congress, which would require 8 or 9 months 
of delay, Congress not being actually in session. A similar 
request has been made by the governments of Colombia and Mex- 
ico, and although their independence is acknowledged by this coun- 
try, their ministers have been informed, that their demand would be 
refused, and their project has been abandoned. The position of 
Greece is different. Our government will refuse to do any act 
which might lead to difficulties ; and although there is no law which 
forbids the building of ships, (qui empeche la construction de ba~ 

X 



1(34 

timens) nevertheless to avoid all complaint from the governments of 
Europe, it is proper to avoid a useless publicity ', and we will give 
it to be understood that we are building for the government of Peru, 
In sending the ships to sea the armament will be put on board as 
cargo. There will be no difficulty ; and the ships may be 
insured at a very low premium, which we believe will not exceed 2 
or 3 per cent, for one and perhaps two ports. Unfortunately for 
your country the order has been too long delayed to render it possi- 
ble that the ships should be employed this campaign. The great 
number of vessels of war building for Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and 
Brazil ; and 15 frigates for the government of the United States, 
occasion such an activity in our ship-yards, (occasionnent une telle 
activite dans nous atteliers) that your ships cannot be built and 
ready for sea in less than six months. In the same space of time, 
the eight frigates might be built and be ready for the next campaign, 
and by the time that the crews would have become accustomed to 
manoeuvre them. In respect to our naval officers to command the 
ships, that is impossible. No one of these officers would serve un- 
der a foreign commander ; and they would lose their rank if they 
entered a foreign service. But for the safe conduct of these fri- 
gates, we will choose among our own officers, (capitaines) proper 
men to insure the object, and who might be persuaded to remain in 
the service of Greece, an ■■' von will find them useful in all respects. 
It is to be understood, that we shall choose only men of abilities, and 
upon whom reliance may be placed. 

You may well suppose after all that has been said of the superi- 
ority of our naval officers, that unless they were offered an honour 
able and advantageous service, they would not decide to leave the 
service of their country and lose their grade ; but if they were con- 
tinued in command, and a chance of promotion were offered them, 
such is their zeal for the cause of your country, that they would devote 
themselves to partake your fortune : and they might take out a num- 
ber of sailors and gunners accustomed to the service. The laurels 
gained from the English would certainly not be lost in fighting the 
Turks. 

It is pi oner to observe, that our insurance companies are estab- 
lished with considerable capitals, and insure against all risk. Ta- 
king, with all the inhabitants of this country, a lively zeal for th< 
success of your gallant and oppressed nation, we cannot but regret 
the delay in obtaining ships so important and necessary in the de- 
fence of rour islands, With sailors as }wxc and skilful as the 



165 

<i reeks, and well officered, our frigates of the first class would be 
able to destroy the strongest Turkish ships : and it appears to us, 
that in effect, this system of defence must present an insurmount- 
able rampart against your enemies. The building of these ships 
will be attended to with the greatest care, and our united attention 
will be daily employed in inspecting and hastening the work. Wc 
feel honoured with the choice which you have made of us. We 
shall neglect nothing to procure ships which may do honour to our 
country and to the service for which they are destined. 

Referring ourselves to what General Lallemand writes to you, 
we have the honour to renew the expression of our perfect conside- 
ration, and of our entire devotion. 

We are, Gentlemen, 

Your very humble and obedient Servants, 

LE ROY, BAYARD, & CO. 

G. G. & S. HOWJLAND, 
Messrs. Jean Orlando and 

Andre Luriqttts 



1GG 

No. IV. 

New-York, Dec. 7, 1824. 

$lESSIEtJ$S, 

Nous avons regu la lettre que vous nous avez fait l'honnem 
de nous addresser pour nous demander des renseignemens sur 
le cont d'une fregate egale a celles de notre gouvernement, d'un 
autre batiment a un canon, ainsi que de differentes munitions de 
guerre. 

En reponse nous avons Phonneur de vous remettre inclus unc 
nette detaillee qui satisfait a vos differentes questions a laquelle 
nous prenons la liberte de vous renvoyer. L' achat de ces dif- 
ferents objets peut-etre fait ici en tout temps, excepte les bati- 
mens qu'il faut faire construire avec un ordre en mains. Nous 
nous occuperions immediatement de cette construction, nous som~ 
mes dans l'usage de faire un contrat avec un constructeur, et en 
autre de l'inspection d'un autre constructeur qui nous est de- 
voue et qui veille au travail et a la qualite des materiaux que 
Ton employe, nos frequentes visites a l'attelier nous assurent des 
batimens bien construits et de bonne duree ; nos constructeurs 
sont fameux pour des batimens d'un marche superieure. 

L'argent a trop de valeur dans ce pays pour que Ton l'em- 
ploye emprunts etrangers. Malgre l'interet que les habitants 
prennent aux succes des braves Grecs combattant pour leur 
independence, nous ne pouvons vous donner l'espoir de reussir 
pour celui qui vous paroisser desirer ; et nous craindrions qui une 
tentative infructeuse fit du tort au credit de votre gouvernement 
en Europe. D'un autre cote le pavement des achaits que vous 
pourrier ordonner ici fait au moyen de remboursemens sur Lon- 
dres, vous offrirait l'avantage de la prime de 8 a 10 per cent, 
que les traittes sur 1' Angleterre gagment ordinairement. Des cre- 
dits de maisons de Londres connues ici telles que Messrs. Baring, 
Brothers, et Co. ou Mons. N. M. Rothschild vous assureroient 
toujours la jouissance de cette et prime et l'avantage de ne faire 
des debourses ici, qu'aux epoques ou ils seroient necessaires sans 
vous mettre dans l'obligation de faire passer des fonds a l'avance 
dans ce pays. Si vous nous honorez de vos ordres, les intfcrets 
«[e votre gouvernement scront soignes avec le zele que nouspor- 



1G7 

tons a ceux de nos amis, augmente s'il est possible par les senti 
mens qui nous unissent a la cause de votre pays, et dont nous au- 
res ete informes en voyant notre Sieur Bayard, president du co- 
mite charge d' addresser des ecours en Grece. Munis de credits 
a Londres de la nature de ceux mentionnes plus baut nous pour- 
ions remplir vos intentions en tous points. Veuilles, Messieurs, 
agreer Passurance de notre parfaite consideration, et dTentier 
devouement avec lequel nous avons l'honneur d'etre. 

Vos tres obeis. Serviteurs, 

LE ROY, BAYARD, & CO. 



TKATsSLATlOX . 

New- York, Dec. 1th, 1824. 
Gentlemen, 

We have received the letter which you did us the honour to 
address to us to obtain information of the cost of a frigate equal 
to those of our government ; of another vessel with a single gun, 
and likewise that of different munitions of war. 

In reply, we have the honour to remit to you enclosed a detailed 
estimate which fully meets your different questions, and to which 
we take the liberty of referring you. The purchase of these dif- 
ferent objects may be made at any time, excepting the vessels. 
which must be built with an order in hand. We could immedi- 
ately commence the building of them : we are in the habit of 
making a contract with a builder, and beside the inspection of 
another builder who is in our employ, and who watches over the 
work, and the quality of the materials which are made use of, 
our frequent visits to the ship-yard assure us of well built and 
durable vessels : our builders are celebrated for ships of a supe- 
rior quality. 

Money is of too much value in this country to be employed in 
foreign loans. Notwithstanding the interest that the inhabitants; 



ItiS 

lake in the success of the brave Greeks righting for their inctc 
pendenee, we cannot give you the hope of succeeding in what 
you appear to desire ; and we should fear that a fruitless attempt 
might do injury to the credit of your government in Europe. On 
the other side, the payment of the purchases which you might 
order here by means of drafts on London, would offer you the 
advantage of a premium of 8 or 10 per cent which bills on Eng- 
land generally bear. Credits on houses in London, known here, 
such as Messrs. Baring, Brothers, & Co. or Mr. N. M. Roths- 
child, would assure to you always the enjoyment of that premi- 
um, and the advantage of not making any disbursements here, 
but at those times when they would be necessary, without oblig- 
ing you to send funds in advance to this country. 

If you honour us with your orders, the interests of your govern- 
ment will be watched over with the zeal which we have for the 
interests of our friends, augmented, if it be possible, by the senti- 
ments which unite us to the cause of your country, and of 
which you have been informed, by seeing our Senior Bayard, 
president of the committee entrusted with sending assistance into 
Greece. Furnished with credits on London of the nature of 
those mentioned above, we shall be able to fulfil your intentions 
in every point. Do us the favour, gentlemen, of accepting the 
assurance of our perfect consideration, and of the entire devotion 
v^ith which we have the honour to be 

Your most obedient Servants, 

LE ROY, BAYARD. & ( o 



Copy of Estimate referred to in the foregoing lettei 



Estimate of a Ship of 50 Guns, 1500 Tons. 

Frame, 20,000 feet live oak, at $1.50 per foot. . $30,000 

Other wooden materials 30,000 

Labour 60,000 

Smith's work 20,000 

Copper bolts 8,000 

Speathimr copper and nail* . . . 12.000 



109 



Joiner's bill 




7,000 


Carver's ditto . 




1,200 


Painter's ditto 




3,000 


Blockmakers ditto 




1,000 


Plumber's ditto ...... 




1,600 


Turner's ditto . . . - 




700 


Ship-chandler's ditto, including pitch, oakum 




4,000 


Rigger's bill 




1,600 


1.500 tons at $120 per ton 




42,000 


Hulls and spars complete. 






Rigging one suit of sails, anchors and cables 


. 


$30,000 


Guns and carriages ..... 


. 


28,000 


Contingent expenses. .... 




67,500 


1500 tons at $165 per ton .... 




247,500 


• Estimate for line oak-, frame, hull, and spam. 




1 50 gun frigate, 1500 tons, at . 


$120 


per ton. 


1 44 . 1400 .... 


120 




1 36 . 1100 


120 




1 28 sloop of war, 700 ... . 


90 




1 20 500 ... . 


80 




1 16 300 .... 


70 





Gun boats, 100 tons, about $10,000, fit for sea 



170 



No. V. 



Estimate of the value of the ship of war, the Liberator 



Wood of every description for the hull, with a 

live oak frame, would cost . . . $65,000 

In this frame there are about 24,000 cubical feet. 
Live oak costs 142£ cents, and white oak is es- 
timated at 60 cents, difference 82£ cents. Cu- 
bical feet, $ 19,800 deducted from the $65,000 
leaves . . . . . 45,200 

Iron ...... 9,795 

Copper and composition . . . 27,140 

Standing and running rigging, cables, hawsers, 

and messengers, per inventory . . 12,698 

Chain cables, 75 and 45 fathoms, 1 f , 1 £ . 1,822 80 

Boats, with oars complete . . . 1,885 

Water casks, 33,300 gallons . . . 3,330 

Blocks ... . 5,000 

Sails ...... 17,000 

Anchors. ..... 4,474 

Labor of every description . . . 55,000 

Kentlege, 100 tons . . ; . 4,000 

Galley . . . . ... 2,000 

Armament 34 — 321b. cannon . . * 13,566 

3,000 321b. shot, and 900 321b. grape . . 7,004 

30 421b. carronades .... 5,650 

1.275 421b. shot and 500 421b. grape . . 1,680 

Gun carriages and all the apparatus belonging to 
the armament, including the stores in the gun- 
ner's department. The magazine furniture, 
the forge, bellows, and all the articles belong- 
ing to the blacksmith's department, per inven- 
tory ...... 13,426 It 



#230,570 97 



171 



■8 



-s 









« 












•c* 




i 




»5 


LD 


60 


CO 


i 


u 


GQ 


<£ 


Q> 


as 


g 


fe 


8 


B 


O 


j= 


•"• . 


«*- 




o 


h S 




-si 


VI. 

Seer 




o <-> 


cu 'XS 


z; « 


^fe 


o 

■4-1 

o 


•p ^ 


eg 

•j 




** 


'■3 


P 




c 


(■ 


c 




CJ 






§ 


H 


H 




j» 




«, 




«0 




V 




s» 




=5 




^»» 












s 




fc 




w 



^ 





Remarks. 


# 


Expenditures 

for 

Materials 

and 
Labour. 


«o CO 
CO 

© — ■ 


in 

o . 

o3 


CO 
(i CO 

^ CO 

© co~ 

3 £ 


m 

5 

3 


a) 

s . 

O 1) 

3 


1 § 

3 S" 


3 


to «•* 

■8 § 

3 " 


^3 
O 

o 


59 H 

3 s 


o . 

^_, CO 

£ fcD 

£^ 


o O 
^ CO 


>> 


HP 
o 

o 

CO 




o J2 
• - <u 

CD 


11 

il 

r 



<2 



a 



3 

CO 

a • 

a 



.2 * 

-w in 

d a 

£ a 

= s 

^ eg 

C3 S 



172 



No. \\L 

Commodore Isaac Chauncey, 

Sir, 

We are about publishing' a statement of the evidence 
in the late cause respecting the Greek frigates. The enclosed 
report of your testimony is extracted almost verbatim from the 
notes taken at the time by one of us, (the other not being then pre- 
sent,) with the exception of the answer to the question at the close 
of the report. But the counsel who was present is confident that 
that question and answer are correctly stated. 

We are desirous of avoiding all error as far as possible, and, 
therefore, in every case, where it seemed to us necessary, we 
have applied, or shall apply, to the gentlemen who gave their 
testimony for the purpose of correcting, as far as may be possible, 
any errors into which we may have fallen. 

If there are any errors in the foregoing report, in your judg- 
ment, you will oblige us, by pointing them out to us. 
# We are, Sir, with the highest consideration, 

Your obedient servants, 

J. DUER. 

It. Sedgwick. 
New-Yorh, Nov. 22nd, 1826. 



Report of Commodore Chauncey's Testimony, enclosed m 
letter to him. 

Commodore Chauncey. 

The witness has been on board the vessels but once. Not 
within his knowledge that any ships except on the Lakes, have 
been built in less time. It must have required great exertions to 
build them within the time in which they were built. During the 
summer of 1825, eighteen shillings were the wages of car- 
penters, such as are usually to be had for twelve and thirteen. 
Materials rose during this period in proportion to wages of me- 
chanics. The necessity of procuring materials at all events, 
would naturally raise their price. Should think that the work 
required great exertions both in the merchants and mechanics. 
The frigatea appear to be well built. 



173 

Cross-examined. He was instructed by the government to act 
as one of the commissioners to appraise or value the ships. 
The report of the commissioners was made for the purpose of 
enabling the government to value the vessels if one or the other 
should be purchased. The preference was given to the upper 
ship, (the Liberator,) but he believes that there was not any very 
material difference between them. He thinks them equal to the 
Brandywine in every respect, except live oak. He should think, 
$25,000 or $30,000, the usual difference between live oak and 
white oak in the expense of building such frigates. An estimate 
of the cost of the Brandywine being shown to the witness, he 
says that, the masts, spars, and rigging therein, appear to be es- 
timated low, though he has nothing at present to refer to, to show 
this. Masts, spars, and anchors, were taken from other vessels 
to supply the Brandywine. 

During the year 1825, the following vessels were building for 
the United States. Two frigates at New-York, one at Ports- 
mouth, one at Boston, one at Washington, one at Norfolk. 
One sloop of war, at Boston, two at New-York. One 100-gun 
ship at Philadelphia, one at Boston, and one at Portsmouth. 

He has always been under the impression, that the dispatch in 
building those frigates would make the expense from 25 to 30 
per cent, more: this is a general impression. He does not 
think they could have been built in as short a time, or for as 
little money elsewhere. 

If the same dispatch had been used after launching as before, 
the vessels might have sailed in February or March. 

Thinks that no better ships have been built in private yards. 

When the materials taken for the Brandywine, from other 
ships are replaced, they will be charged to the Brandywine, ac- 
cording to the usage in the navy. Being asked by the counsel 
of the deputies whether he knew that the materials taken from 
other ships had not been replaced before the said estimate was 
made out, and consequently included in it, he answered that 
he did not. 



174 



COMMODORE CHAUNCEY'S REPLY, 



United States Navy Yard, 

Brooklyn, Nov. 26, 1826. 

Gentlemen, 

I have had the honor of receiving your communication of the 
22nd instant, and I regret that my official duties have prevented 
me from furnishing you with an earlier reply. In examining 
your report of my testimony given before the arbitrators in the 
case of the Greek frigates, there appears in some parts of it 
considerable variation from what I believe I said. For instance, 
you make me state, that there were building at the navy yards, 
at Philadelphia, Boston, and Portsmouth, three 100-gun ships, 
when it is notorious, that we have but one of that class. Now, 
it cannot be believed that I could make such statement either 
from ignorance, or wilfully. Besides, the variation between that 
part of your report above alluded to, and what I believe I said, 
it strikes me, that there is much of the first part of my testimony 
entirely omitted, This perhaps is not material ; I shall, therefore, 
proceed to state the substance of the testimony that I recollect 
to have given before the arbitrators, although it may not be in 
the order in which it was given : for you doubtless recollect 
that my testimony was merely answers to interrogatories. When 
asked whether I had visited the Greek frigates, I stated that I 
had visited them but once, and then as one of the commission- 
ers, appointed by the secretary of the navy, to examine and re- 
port upon them. I stated, that the commissioners preferred the 
Liberator, but that I believed there was little or no difference 
between the ships, and both of them appeared well-built, and 
equal in all respects to our largest class frigates, except the 
frames, which were in the Greek ships of white oak. 1 also sta- 
ted, that I had never known ships of their dimensions built in so 
short a time, except on the Lakes ; that it must have required 
great exertions both in the merchants and mechanics to have ac- 
complished the work in so short a period. 



175 

I also stated, that during the summer of 1825 the wages of 
carpenters employed in the navy yard under my command, 
rose from 12$. and 14*. to 17$. and 18*. per day. and that I pre- 
sumed they had increased in the same, or a greater proportion 
in private yards, and that the p ice of materials were proportion- 
abry increased, in consequence of the number of ships building, 
and the great demand for materials. 

I stated, that the Greek ships appeared to me to be larger 
than the Brandywine ; that the difference between the cost -of 
a live oak and a white oak frame would probably be from 
$25,000 to 30,000. But this was only conjecture, as I had no 
documents to refer to ; and it was probable I might be greatly 
in error. 

When the cost of the Brandywine was shown to me, I stated, 
that it appeared to me to be low, and I attempted to account for 
it by statiisr, that the Brandywine was fitted out for a particular 
service, and in great haste, and that I knew that many of her 
equipments were taken from other ships, such as masts, spar?, 
sails, rigging, guns, &x. &c. and I presumed that they were not 
all charged to the Brandywine, nor would they be until the same 
articles were procured to replace them to the ships from which 
they were taken ; at least, this was the usual course of service. 

I believe that I stated, in answer to a question, that I did not 
know that all the articles taken from other ships for the Brandy- 
wine, were not already charged to that ship, and included in the 
estimate of her cost ; but I did not believe that they were, as it 
would be unusual. 

In answer to a question, I stated, that during the year 1825, 
there were building at the Navy Yard, Portsmouth, N. H. one 
frigate ; at Boston, one ship of the line (74-guns,) one frigate, 
and one sloop of war ; at New-York, two frigates and two 
sloops of war ; at Philadelphia, one ship of the line, (100 
guns;) at Washington, one frigate; at Norfolk, one ship 
of the line, (74) and one frigate, besides these, there were on the 
stocks at our different yards, finished, or nearly so, two ships of 
74 guns, and two frigates, besides several under repairs. It was 
my impression, that ships built under the circumstances of the 
Greek frigates, would cost from 25 to 30 per cent, more than 
similar ships built under ordinary circumstances ; and from my 
knowledge of the United States, I did not believe that ships of 
the same dimensions could have been built in so short a time 



176 

and for the same money at any other port. It was also my im- 
pression, that without impediment of any kind, and the same ex- 
ert; used in fitting the ships after launching, as was used in 
the building, they might have sailed in February or March, 
1826. 

I have thus stated in substance, what I recollect to have said, 
in giving my testimony before the arbitrators, in the case of the 
Greek frigates. 

I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, Gentlemen, 

Your most obedient humble Servant, 

I. CHAUNCEY. 

To Messrs. John Duer and 

Robert Sedgwick, Esqs. 



177 



No. VIII. 



An Estimate of the Expenses for completing ready for Sea, 
one Frigate, including Pay and Subsistence for Officers 
and Men. 



DoUs. 
Smith and Demon, carpenter's work, including amount 

due to George Arrowsmith . . . 3,650 

Bergh and Ivers, composition and brass castings . 1,900 
D. and L. Halsey, joiner's work, including settee and 

tables for cabin, and table for ward-room . . 700 

Elliott Higgins, rigger's work «. . . 1,000 

N. Waterbury, masts and spars '. . , 1,150 

George Youle, plumber's work . . . 250 

Charles Ware, sail-maker .... 750 

Fitment for boats and oars for boats . . . 175 
Sellock Nichols, block-maker, with extra blocks, 

sheeves, and pins, for boatswain and gunner . 2,500 

Tucker and Barker, forges, bellows, anvils, &c. . 600 
Enoch Hidden, for sundry armourer's work, fitting 

guns, &c. . . . . . .317 

J. Pier, for copper work, hand pumps. &c. . . 75 

Iron to complete the outfit . . . - . 500 

Salt ...... 90 

Wharfage and harbour expenses, transportation of ves- 
sels by steam-boats, pilotage, and all other harbour 

expenses ...... 900 

Watering ship, wood, coal, sawing, and cartage . 700 

Candles and lamp oil . . . . . 372 

Harbour expenses, for boating, &c. . . . 100 

Finishing coppering magazine and passages . . 250 

Fitments for hot shot .... 50 

Powder, (cannon) 24,0001b . ... 4,800 

Powder, (musket) and priming, 3,0001b. . . 600 

Powder horns and lead, aprons for locks . . 290 
Crow bars, salt boxes, tube boxes, and screens for 

magazine ...... 266 



178 



200 muskets ...... 800 

200 cutlasses ...... 500 

Battle axes and boarding pikes . . . 625 

Fire engine and hose .... 800 

Hand cuffs and shackles for prisoners . . . 320 

Small articles from the cooper, such as buoys, harness 

casks, buckets, &c. . . . .150 

Medical department, medicine, hospital stores, and sur- 
gical instruments ..... 1,200 

Sundry disbursements, pay to officers and men attached 
to vessels, store rent, gunner and gunner's crew, and 
all contingent expenses occurring to the store and 
vessels . . . . . 3,750 

Hammock bag, wind sails, boat, and studding sail 

covers . . .... 950 

One cable, required for ship, No. 1 . . . 1,650 

N. Waterbury, for making* and other expenses of ex- 
tra spars . . . . . 400 

Ship chandlery, extra rigging for stores, supplying de- 
ficiencies occasioned by weather or war", for six 
months, sailing master's stores, boatswain's stores, 
gunner's stores, sail-maker's stores, purser's outfits, 
and purser's steward's outfits . . . 13,900 

Provision for 200 men for four months . . 6,250 

Pay of 130 men, at $20 per month, for six months . 15,600 
Pay of 25 petty officers, at $25 per month, for six 
months ...... 3,750 

Pay to the commander and 23 officers for six months . 8,740 
Cabin furniture ... 50 

Contingencies ..... 4,500 

£86,370 



New- York, April 20th, 1826. 






170 



No. IX. 



Expenses of Superintending the build- 
ing of hco Frigates for Greece. Keels 
laidinJulo, 1825— launched in Nov. 
same year, and no work done on them 
after 'March, 1826. 

To two mercantile houses in N.York — 
commissions (including banking com- 
missions in London never paid and for- 
gotten to be charged, and interest on 
■whole 6 months before due) — for vi- 
siting ship-yards frequently — meeting 
in committee with General Lallemand 
and Capt. Chauncey, three times a 
week — having the trouble of several 
hundred thousand dollars in hand for 
several months, and incurring the 
risk of the arbitrators not allowing all 
their claims, $90,000 

To a distinguished French Ge- 
neral, for ascertaining that 
frigates should be of first 
class — do. materials of the 
best quality — do. that rules 
and regulations of U. States 
navy should be observed 
— also meeting in committee 
as aforesaid — at the rate of 
£120 sterling per month, &c. 
—say, 6,000 

To a Captain in the American 
navy — for also ascertaining 
that materials should be of 
best quality — also that the 
rules and regulations of navy 
should be observed — also 
meeting in said committee — 
furnishing plans and models 
— keeping an office — receiv- 
ing proposals for contracts — 
and losing his fees and emo- 
luments as a Captain in the 
navy — $10,000 per contract, 
and .$1,500 per receipt, to 
supply want of other vouch- 
ers for same amount, . . . 11,500 

To the master ship-builders for 
their skill and personal ser- 
vices — also, exclusive devo- 
tion of their extensive ship- 
yards, including work-shops, 
black-smiths' shops, mould 
lofts and tools — also, first in- 
spection of wood, timber, Sec. 
afterwards examined by Gen. 
L. and Capt. C. — meeting in 
committee not charged . . 50,000 



Annual Expenses of Administering the 
Governments of the United States and 
Stale of New- York, in their executive 
and judicial departments. 



President and Vice-President of the U. 
States, per annum, . . . $30,000 

The heads of the four depart- 
ments, 24,000 

Chief Justice and six Judges 
of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, 31,000 

Governor and Lieutenant Go- 
vernor of the State of New- 
York, (about) 3,000 

Secretary of State, Comptrol- 
ler, Treasurer, Surveyor Ge- 
neral, and Attorney Gene- 
ral, 10,000 

Chancellor, Chief Justice, and 
two Justices of the Supreme 
Court, 8,000 

Eight Circuit Judges, including 
the City of New-York, . . 11,000 



$157,500 
122,000 



$122,000 



TO 



THE MERCHANTS OF THE CITY OF NEW- YORK, 

WRITTEN WITH A PRIMARY VIEW OF ENABLING THEM, 
IN SUCH .MODE AS THEIR JUDGMENT AND FEELINGS MAY DICTATE, 

TO VINDICATE THEIR OWN HONOUR 

UVD THAT OF THEIR COUNTRY, 

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 
Br 

THE AUTHORS. 



* 



^ <«C~or C C< 



^<3C3pc^ 






cc <cl« 

c r - <: m 

( ec^ 

< c; c: * 


" <C CX 
CC C<2 

tC<L <C<< 
V<cC <£•' 


Kcc=<i 


IC<CC C 
dc«: c « 

KJtcCC < 

ssc<<3 

iseccc* 



CCcc 



c«c <^ 






f .CC<3iC.^ 



:tc^ <:« 



< _ 



C«£ cc OC£< 

ft <:^ «:« 

[CC CC 

<T4C C<C 

o*3 ccc^ 

-<rccc< 

C «*£!<- c<^ 

C'«*C5-i ^^lY 



c<g< 

r v«k:«C^ cCC<' 



#cC<^ CSSSQ& 

vcc<x-<:c« 
~<£ C<6 CO 



^5S85»af«fc fig 



^<rc« «£r^ 



ac«c 



<C 

C0C 



^c^^^W 






1 if to § 



cci^<< 



4*C^ 



<C, 



<:<■» 



< < k 

c < 

C < t 

< < I 

f 1 



^f^ 



*< « ■< Cd^ 
rS <<r <CC< ^ 

^C <C<£ cc < cV^ 

< « cc<rV^ 
ccrrV 


<. « 

CC 

< c< 

< < 

< < 

C 

C 

rr . 


C <L <C 

« < ■ ■<- *- 

: <cc< 
c << c 

L <5 < 


C «JC« 

<-. <sC_C5 

•c «*c< 

" c<*^ 

C <d<^ 




*v .- c 


- c <So< 



<^ <i 



. C< a c 
C <? < C cC ' 
C CC < C CC ", 

c « c c « 

c <5.<-v< a 
c «£c«&C cc 

C <CCCC ' 
c <£ < » c <. «_ 

c <^<i<CC d < 
c «i < cc; c cc 
( <CC« cc C c: 

C CCOCC C c 
C <C cc c cc c c 

C <S < < C<L < < 

< «c < cc < c 
c <:c c cc: « c 

lc ccc < c 

: c c< - < 

' ^ c c 

_ c < c 

• c <l<z:< < 

ccc 

^ ^<.c c 

1 c < c^c c 



cc <<^ 

■" cc ■ _ 
CCTcC' 
cc !" 

6 C C _ 

c «o C 

« C c - 

<t <. <jr 

<• < C< 

c c < 






<l«c 



c << 

<: esc 

<:cc 

C CC 
c cc: 
c c<: 

ccc 
(C<C 



CC< 

ccc < 

CCC < 

c« 

CCC< «v ^^^7 

ceo <■-<: ^c :x. 

^^c:<"\c «Tc 

<c<c 



fee c<X C^^ r 
^ etc t*^*^ 

7 CC C< C ^S^ 
Ccr.ClC C ' .<< c^C <<- 

ssocT<3<s v< 

TtC C C ' c 
" CC c^<c«.<c- 

cc <:^<sK<cr<^ 

-r ..^C <7 <<<■« <^L.C_C 

r cjc« 



^c c ■ 
< ^C< < < 

c <cccc c: 

: cc c 



<^CLC 
r < 



c<dc:c 
c«cc< 



(CC<J 

C<<<1< 



^ < C r <C< 

§ CC C .Cc.< ccc< 

< c c < < cci 

1 CC CC< CCCc 

•C <<f . c« 

*C7«5 CC C_<^< <<C 

4C*^ C< Cccc CCCc 

c c cx< c<rc, 

CC CCCCC CCCC 

<c «r« ccc c< < ccc c 

<C <R< CC Cc< . CCC Cc 

d«l£C C<l<lcctf ^c c 

<LOC^ CCCcC(<Ccc 
<T ^CC c <7. c<c cxr~ 



COG' -c 
CCC^ ^cc 

ccccc .cc 

c<x < e 

<"CC(c <<:<: 

CCCcc <CC 
ccc C< <<«• 

CCCo c<^ 

CCC ( < 

CCCCc c 
CCCc c 



CCCC cc 
_.Cc< 'cccc a 

CCCc d 

CC<< C«(CCCC« CCcc cc 

< «7C' • C «Z.<^ CCC< c < 

;c<e c^^cc'C <xc cccc cc 
< c cr^cr c: ccc crc c ft . 
c cccc«[<r <jcc ccc c (s: 
cc> o<«c<acr<: «c ccc c < 

c <: cohere <: cct « c c « 

ccc«7c: <r<r ctcc <r<^ 

^c< <cc cccc «K3Cc 

rc<: <cc cere cr<rc:c 
_'cc cc< ccc c <c^c:< 
CC«CTCC CCC CCC ^cto<^ 

ccCtKTcc <?c ccc c^ <c<-«-^ * 
<cc^jt7cc: ci<: ccc <«^ 
ccc<Cjt-<i CCC CC <3 ^ 

:c< ccc CCCCC C5 



c«:<:c 

ccccdc 



CCCc <C C *T'/«-< f 

<r:<c <:c <: <rc 

cc <lc c<r;c <:« CC< 
<c <ic cicc c <: r ccc 

r CCc cc C ' CC< ' 

<c<:c c<: c <: ccc ^ c< 

C <1 CCC 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

I 



020 148 673 7 






In 



W; 



